Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 29	December 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. No outstanding delete votes.

(non-admin closure) Nightfury 12:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

List of most-disliked YouTube videos

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

~~In short, this article fails~~

~~original research~~

~~(and likely inaccurate original research at that).~~

~~(I am aware that~~

WP:LISTN does not require every entry in a list to be documented in sources to meet notability requirements, but I do not believe that this was meant to do away with verifiability requirements for list articles. Even if the article technically complies with listn, there are no sources for what should be the crux of the article). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I am withdrawing my nomination on the grounds that sources have been brought up that do seem to be keeping live track. This has been a colossal waste of everyone's time and I apologize for the blatant violation of

WP:BEFORE. Trouts may be posted here. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - @
WP:V remains met, also. As you mention, lists are constantly posted by various media outlets. Regardless of whether they base their content on Wikipedia, some are reliable and are therefore referenceable ([1], [2], [3], [4]). You are correct in saying that hundreds of hours are uploaded every second, but it's highly unlikely that a new video will be uploaded and become the most disliked video without some sort of media coverage. Here's an article discussing the fact that the 2018 YouTube Rewind is now the most disliked video. We do not need a database that lists disliked videos for this list to be notable. Anarchyte (talk • work) 04:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is purporting to be an authoritative list of the 50 most disliked YouTube videos. You're right that the most disliked video doesn't change much, but what about videos 2-50? Can we really be certain that we aren't missing any from the list, that we aren't listing videos that do not belong on the list, and that the rankings are accurate? To answer my rhetorical question, no and its far, far more likely they are wrong than right (we however have no way of knowing due to the lack of sources). I agree that we have tons of sources, and an article such as "YouTube videos known for dislikes" or "Dislikes on YouTube" would meet notability requirements and other key policies. However, we are not nominating those articles, but a list article that is original research at its core. This article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to meet verifiability; in its current form, there is no way to make it comply with core content policies. To go back to my previous keep votes, this was not a nomination I wanted to make and honestly put it off for months. However, ~~attempts at addressing these issues have fizzled out, and article is now at odds with key policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep per Anarchyte. This is a topic which pretty clearly meets LISTN, the most-disliked YouTube videos are often discussed as a group, and it does not change often enough to be unverifiable. Any problems with keeping it updated is pretty simple, just add an "as of" column to the table. That way, there is no accuracy concern. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that some information may be outdated at times does not affect notability of any article. Sources cover this. Once notable, always notable. No valid reason given for deletion. Dream Focus 17:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that the core of the article is original research that has no way of meeting verifiability requirements (a much lower standard than notability which nonetheless needs to be met). As for datedness, this isn't an "at times issue". Without some sort of sorter, we can expect the list to be consistently wrong and inaccurate especially outside the top two or three most disliked videos; the problem will only increase as the archived database becomes increasingly out of date. This isn't like a list of tallest buildings or oldest person; YouTube statistics change so quickly that anything besides a live count will be wrong very quickly. Also, I've reviewed many of these static sources, and they don't explain how they got their rankings. It is incredibly likely that what sources that do exist are taking their rankings straight from this article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close. Nominator has withdrawn nomination. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:37, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaz Mughal

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

It appears a apam autobiography. The subject fails to satisfy notability

WP:JOURNALIST. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an activist or journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam non-notable autobiography, no other contributions from the SPA creator JW 1961 Talk 15:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourcing insufficient for the purposes of establishing notability; fails
WP:BASIC Spiderone 23:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Clearly spam and promotional also fails
WP:NBIO Prolix 💬 15:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Lowery

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

2007 bio of a businessman that does not appear to meet

WP:ANYBIO. There has apparently been some COI editing as well. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. This unsourced article on a living person lasting 13 years is a black eye upon Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this would meet
WP:ANYBIO or any other guidelines Spiderone 20:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
would have been excused then, but in 2020, everybody knows we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Postal (franchise). By strength of arguments, consensus is to redirect. There does not seem to be consensus to merge, as evidence of reliably-sourced material is lacking. However, as this is redirect and not delete, information is available in page history for review. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Postal Dude

)

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

Fails

WP:GNG, largely primary-sourced or plot-summary. The reception is very thin and cherry picked from trivial mentions in reviews of the game. Non notable fictional character. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Postal (franchise). The reception section is all minor, cherry-picked trivial quotes. The primary development info can either be placed in the series article or in relevant game articles. TTN (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pending better explanation for it not passing GNG, per
WP:HANDLE. Dark knight 2149 23:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I think "fails GNG" is rather self explanatory. It's impossible to explain notability that doesn't exist.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to the list of characters from the franchise, TTN is right the reception is based on passing mentions only but it can be salvaged (kept) in a merge, the rest here is a fancrufty plot summary. Ping me if better sources are found, there is the unreferenced paragraph about a tie into the real world murderer which could make this character notable if there is some in-depth discussion out there, but I am not seeing much that is reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That information appears to be better off in the article on the shooting than here, if a reliable source can actually be found for it. It's more relevant to the shooting than it is to the character._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information from Reception and Controversies sections can also be moved to each video games' articles, since they are reviews on such games rather than on the character. --LoЯd ۞pεth 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Scholar search locates several mentions of the character, specifically in relation to video game violence and its effect on children. The same is true of a search of Books. It appears to me that the character has enough of a profile to warrant a standalone article, and the piece is well done. If a section could be added to discuss the controversy around violence in some more additional detail, it would be a slam dunk in my mind, but even without that I think it is a good encyclopedia article.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion around violence provoked would be more accurately applied to the game itself, not the character. Character articles should include critical discussion of the character, not general aspects of the game such as whether it has contributed to video game related violence (although the entire idea of games contributing to violence in anything but an extremely isolated way has long since been debunked)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Postal (franchise) as a valid alternative to deletion. Absolutely "fluffy" and lacking of independent notability. No harm in encyclopedic information being mentioned in the main article, however. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Diaper Drive

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

Article about a local charity that managed to gather some media attention, but I’m not sure it ever met

WP:NORG. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, none notability claims for its own article. Kolma8 (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Roy (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary and misconceived disambiguation page. The purpose of a dab page is not to list every article that might happen to have a word, name or phrase embedded inside a longer title -- it is solely to funnel readers to the correct choice among pages that could potentially have collided at the same title. In other words, a dab page is only useful if there are multiple pages that could have been given the exact title "Gabrielle Roy". But the topics listed here are not other Gabrielle Roys of lesser notability than the Canadian writer, but schools named after the Canadian writer -- so their names aren't "Gabrielle Roy", but "École Gabrielle-Roy" or "Collège Gabrielle-Roy". And on top of the fact that this isn't what a dab page is for, most of the links are not actually leading to articles about said schools, but to articles about the cities or neighbourhoods that said schools are in (or in one case the public transit service that operates a bus line that the school is on). So this isn't even really dabbing things named "École Gabrielle-Roy" either, but things named "Châteauguay", "Boisbriand", "Bonnie Doon" and "Société de transport de l'Outaouais". And for the icing on the cake, all of the schools named after her are already listed in the "schools in her name" section of her main biographical article anyway -- which means that even if this did have anything to do with what disambiguation pages are meant for, it would still be completely redundant because a person who was actually looking for a list of the schools named after Gabrielle Roy can already find them listed in the main page as it is. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All
WP:PTM except for the base title. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:43, 4 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) 21:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Micallef

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

A non-notable referee and telecoms worker. Fails

WP:BASIC. I disagree with the assertion in the article that he is the same person as Fr. Alfred Micallef, SJ. This source about the referee makes no mention of him writing for Times of Malta or being a friar. In turn, this article makes no mention of Fr. Alfred Micallef being a referee or working in telecoms! They also look nothing alike. Spiderone 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be an example of building the Frankenstein when two different people are accidentally merged into one article. Neither pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Building the Frankenstein' has to be my favourite Wikipedia phrase! Spiderone 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:10, 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 Rename. Consensus to keep this article and rename/rework to be about Derek Black.

(non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Derek Black Show

)

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

Is this radio show notable? If it is, this article should be re-written to discuss the show, and not Derek Black. It seems like Derek Black and his father Don are notable, but notability does not automatically extend to the radio program. Natg 19 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Natg 19: I'd recommend editing the intro paragraph and retitling this article "Derek Black" - he currently doesn't have an article other than this one and his father's, and is indeed notable in his own right. The show is/was only notable because it's his, I think, rather than the other way around. -- grant (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your assessment, but I am asking for more community consensus, before the page is retitled and re-focused around "Derek Black". Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The show is not notable. I have doubts that the radio personality behind it is notable either. Really if you want to create an article on him you should create a new article through the articles for creation process, not try to sneak in an article by editing an existing one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this article was originally about the show, but an IP user added a biography of Derek Black in 2018 with this edit . Natg 19 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Derek Black: The article focuses more on the host rather than the show itself. Most of the sources seem to be reliable since they talk about him. While the article should be trimmed down a bit, it's good enough to pass
WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and rename to Derek Black: Complete agreement with Superastig.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:29, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La isla misteriosa y el capitán Nemo

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

Despite a review from Roger Ebert, it has no other significant coverage. Does not meet

WP:NFILM. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see coverage in El cine de Juan Antonio Bardem (1998), pages 220-222. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per Toughpigs’ discovery of this source. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:40, 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Manor of Knightshayes

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

There is no "manor of Knightshaves". This is a

WP:CONTENTFORK from Knightshayes Court. The house is an English country house (which the National Trust occasionally loosely advertise as a "manor house", though there is no associated manor); the land attached to the house, the "estate of Knightshayes" has a varied history pre-independent of the house - detailed on Historic England, which describes it as farm land, and before that as a small area of land within the demesne of the Earl of Devon (that is, the private land within a larger manor). Description of the land belonging to the house belongs in the article on the house, unless there is evidence of the land being notable independently of the house - and that is not the case here. The Knightshayes Court article includes all the appropriate detail repeated in Manor of Knightshayes though without misleadingly describing the estate as a manor. Either it is a house/mansion/country house/manor house, in which case Knightshayes Court is sufficient, or it is a manor, in which case there would be reliable sources describing it as such - but the closest to that is the land once being a small part of a manor, but not an actual manor in itself. A redirect would not be appropriate as that would leave the title "manor of Knightshaves" (which has never existed) turning up on search engines and Wikipedia mirrors, and creating a false illusion that such a manor existed. SilkTork (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content is duplicated from Knightshayes Court and there's no source for the article title, making it an unlikely redirect. I've only recently become aware of the damage done by redirects that are original research, as SilkTork says above. Within minutes, the internet becomes polluted by mirrors and search engines scraping the redirect and creating ghits for a title or concept that has never existed previously. DrKay (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've already set out my thoughts about this article on its talk page. Of particular importance is the fact that although superficially the article appears to be well referenced, upon examination the references do not support its notability at all. —SMALL JIM 22:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the commentary above. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article may possibly be mis-named, that does not warrant deletion. "Manor" is popularly interpreted as "historic estate", so perhaps re-name as "Estate of Knightshayes", it is a notable estate, whether it was technically a
WP:Split, the following discussion occurred on the talk page of article Knightshayes Court
, which resulted in the creation of this subsidiary page. The format of calling such split articles "manor of XYZ" was something suggested long ago by User:Smalljim.

Lobsterthermidor - Hi Lobster, good to see you again. I think the early history of the Dickinson family will need trimming. It’s just not that relevant to the Burges house which is the subject of the article, it doesn’t really follow a summary style, the bullet points would be better as prose, and the citation style should follow that already existing. You could, of course, start another article, “History of the Manor of Knightshayes”, or whatever it was called then. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you, OK, I will move it to Manor of Knightshayes Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User:KJP1 identifies himself on his talk page as a "

Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, commissioned by the National Trust. Also William Hoskins (1954) "Devon", p.497. The issue as to the title of the article has been brought up by me on the talk page, without response. I would suggest that this discussion is more relevant to Wikipedia:Moving a page than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It's notable and has good sources.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

On closer inspection I note that despite the request of KJP1 to split off the familial/descent history onto a new page (which request I complied with), on 19 November 2020‎ User:Smalljim restored much of it back into the main article "talk contribs‎ 13,743 bytes +1,102‎ →‎History: Expand with detail from article Manor of Knightshayes". The descent/history information is now back in the article, i.e. we are now back to square one. Further expansion needs to be done to the familial/descent history section, incorporating the work of David Lambert, but I suspect that will disappoint KJP1. I don't know what the answer is, I think KJP1 will be happier if we leave the main article about Burges's house and discuss history elsewhere, in a separate split-off article appropriately named. I agree that "Manor" is not an ideal title.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
WP:NGEO "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events." All this article really says about the property itself is the town it is near, that it was owned and sold by families of local importance, and that a notable structure was later built on it, none of which is the basis for independent notability. I just don't think it is the purpose of Wikipedia to provide a complete topographical account of every single landholding in England, nor should such articles be created as proxies or coatracks for family history articles. Agricolae (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: per nom. Unnecessary CFORK made from material already in Knightshayes Court. // Timothy :: talk 20:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose -- I do not know if there was a manor of Knighthayes, though there was a house preceding the present one (now National Trust property). However this article is not about that house and certainly not about a manor, but about the Dickinson family, one of whom was a
sheriff of Devon, listed in that article as "Benjamin Bowden Dickenson of Tiverton". Many but far from all sheriffs have articles. It might be possible to reconstruct this article as one on him. Alternatively merge back to Knightshayes Court. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - this is to the eyes of myself and other editors a
WP:FORK. At a certain point, if experienced Wikipedians look at an article and say the same thing, it's probably a fork. I would not oppose a merge. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 8 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. withdrawn

(non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

David Berger (artist)

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

~~I don't believe this article meets~~

~~WP:GNG.~~ Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NARTIST if the museum collections check out though. Have you considered that? Vexations (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep I added three refs for museum collections. Meets
talk) 20:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Withdraw Meets
WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:24, 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 22:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sykes, California

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

Looks like this may have been some sort of railroad feature, not a community. Topos show three buildings where a road crosses the Southern Pacific. Newspapers.com brought up a bunch of last names under the search terms Sykes in California, Sykes Inyo in California, and Sykes Southern Pacific in California. This mentions a Sykes siding. JSTOR didn't bring up much beyond last names. Looks like a possible GNIS error. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating Skyes, California, as it appears to be an error for Sykes. There's no featured named Skyes on the topos, but the description of it being on the Southern Pacific north-northwest of Little Lake matches, and the distance between the two seems to be close to the 6.5 miles given. There seems to be a very strong indication that Sykes and Skyes are the same. Even if Sykes is kept, I'm not sure that Skyes should be, as simply an error. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete both Negligently mass-produced junk with no evidence of being communities, less a notable one. Reywas92^Talk 20:12, 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) 19:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Cardiff

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

Siege not mentioned, neither by the chroniclers, neither by nowadays historians. The arrival of an army in a city doesn't justify the creation of an article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed - can't find any sources to say there was any siege. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator and Eastfarthingan. A good glance, what siege? BlueD954 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not every military action is notable. As noted above there seems to be serious doubt as to whether this can even be classed as a siege, and there is nothing I can find to suggest that this was a particularly significant engagement/battle. The capture of
Edward II and Hugh Despenser the Younger was notable, but while this article seems to imply that was at Cardiff the Invasion of England (1326) article says it happened near Llantrisant, the Edward II article says "north of Caerphilly" and Hugh Despenser the Younger's article states "near Neath". While all of these are relatively near Cardiff, they are far enough away that they would not be directly caught up in a "siege" of the city. Whatever the case I think the main Invasion of England (1326) article is the place that the final fall of forces loyal to Edward II can be covered rather than needing a separate article for these events (though I would note that its title "Invasion of England" is perhaps misleading, given that this was more of a civil war and clearly involved Wales as wellas England). Dunarc (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete lacks RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Like the Cambridge article on which I have just voted, the tone of this article is FAKE NEWS. Alison Weir's biography of Isabella (p.234) indicates that Edward II was at Cardiff on 26 October, when Bristol fell (after 8 days siege by an army of 2000). Dispenser surrendered at Bristol because public opinion was with Isabella. Her description of subsequent events does not mention Cardiff further. The king and younger Dispenser moved to Caerphilly Castle by 29th, then to Gower and Neath. Edward surrendered to the Earl of Lancaster on 16 November (Weir, pp.236-8). His efforts to raise troops on the lands of supporters in the marcher lordships of south Wales had been a failure. Note that these were not part of his realm of England or the Principality of Wales, merely being under his suzerainty. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Oxford

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

Battle not mentioned, neither by the chroniclers, neither by nowadays historians. The arrival of an army in a city doesn't justify the creation of an article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly worth noting that the creator of the article drew a lot of negative attention during a half-year stint on wp ten years ago, which ended in an indefinite block: Bakeysaur99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Eric ^talk 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, he also put down France as the combatant which drew some discussion at the time; not sure why. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This doesn't seem to have been a battle at all; just some intermediate maneuverings in a military campaign. Nothing to write about here. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real details or sources here to establish any notability, fails
WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - there is nothing to establish notability. Several towns are captured/come under the control of an opposing side during a war, particularly in what was effectively a civil war, so this in itself is not a notable event and so not every such instance needs its own article. There needs to either be significant coverage in the historical record, clear evidence of a significant battle or some other sign that the capture was of major significance to the outcome of the overall campaign. There is nothing to suggest that this was the case in this instance. Dunarc (talk) 23:50, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Cambridge

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

Battle not mentioned, neither by the chroniclers, neither by nowadays historians. The arrival of an army in a city doesn't justify the creation of an article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly worth noting that the creator of the article drew a lot of negative attention during a half-year stint on wp ten years ago, which ended in an indefinite block: Bakeysaur99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Eric ^talk 16:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but how does that relate to the article's merits? Your comment does not explain your !vote in a policy-based manner. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - First three words of my comment: Possibly worth noting. My "!" vote?? Eric ^talk 00:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, he also put down France as the combatant which drew some discussion at the time; not sure why. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, what basis in policy do you cite for deletion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you please show any sources that show that there was a military action regarding this article? Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real details or sources here to establish any notability, fails
WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As I stated in a previous discussion on the now deleted "Capture of Oxford" article, several major towns/cities are captured, or switch to the control of an opposing side, during a war, particularly in dynastic conflicts and civil wars (which is what the events of this time in England basically were). Thus the capture of a town is not, in itself, a notable event and so not every such instance needs its own article (Wikipedia would quickly become very crowded if it did). To my my mind this means there needs to either be significant coverage in the historical record, clear evidence of a significant battle or some other sign that the capture was of major significance to the outcome of the overall campaign. As far as I can see, there is nothing here to suggest that this was the case in this instance. Dunarc (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete or just merge it into any history of Cambridge article. BlueD954 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The once source cited here does not mention any events at Cambridge. The related Invasion of England (1326) cites Alison Weir's biography of Isabella. This (pp.225-6) mentions that she moved from Bury St Edmunds to Cambridge and spent three days there, with every one flocking to her cause. This does not read like a battle; more like a walk over. The implication of the article is that there was some kind of fight, but that is the equivalent of FAKE NEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triggerfinger (The Walking Dead)

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

Article falls under

talk) 15:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 16:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail

WP:GNG

:

From season 1

From season 3

From season 4

From season 5

From season 6

From season 7

@
talk) 17:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to reviewer - take a look at the talk page for
talk) 17:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not against the deletion but I think all of these articles should be draftified, as editors put a lot of effort into writing plots and summarising reception. This will hopefully encourage editors to improve drafts until they meet the criteria.--TheVampire (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all They pass GNG because they get multiple reviews. I look at Triggerfinger (The Walking Dead) and Walk with Me (The Walking Dead) and both have two reliable sources reviewing them. Stop wasting people's time. Dream Focus 17:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:GNG
?

They pass GNG because the reviews exist and are by reliable sources and news sites. Read the reviews, they are in depth. What you write above, in my opinion, shows the article passes GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They obviously need to be improved to incorporate wording from these reviews beyond just their score, but the fact the reviews exist is the GNG sourcing that is required. --Masem (t) 01:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coda (The Walking Dead) has coverage from The Daily Beast, Entertainment Weekly, and iO9, among others. These mass nominations are not a good idea, when there are significant differences between the articles. I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn, and nominate individual episodes instead. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I searched a random number of episodes and found multiple reviews and articles containing production information, so GNG is passed. GNG is determined by the existing sources, not by the current state of the article. Rhino131 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Outrageous
valid policy. Dark knight 2149 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Procedural keep - some of these might be worth putting up for AfD individually but absolutely nothing is going to be achieved here as there is no way that we can have a clear discussion about the individual merits and faults of each article in a forum like this Spiderone 19:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per
WP:TRAINWRECK. I count 89 articles listed for deletion in one discussion. There is no chance of any kind of consensus coming out of such a huge nomination. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep: I'm not setting here and giving 70+ articles an in-depth look to see if they need to be deleted or kept. Articles being stubs shouldn't be an issue either. Editors should be encouraged to
WP:PLOTONLY while some do very well. Just tag them with a long plot summary tag. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Procedural keep There are just too many pages to expect people to look through and evaluate individually. Especially due to the extremely vague statement of "Fails GNG". They may well all fail GNG but it doesn't seem like they were checked one by one and just nominated in bulk.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh, seriously?) Speedy keep all ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "speedy" or "procedural" anything: "nominate individually" is not a sensible rationale to keep. Number of reviews per episode in a season (barring perhaps premiere, finale, award-winning or cult following episodes) are usually reasonably consistent, such that spotchecks of a couple of articles are likely to be representative. — Bilorv (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Very poor rationale for the first, unusual nom structure for the rest. I have no interest in the show, but this is in no way a model AfD nomination and we aren't deleting an entire television series' episode articles just because. chatter) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that there's a current discussion on
WT:TV about what do with episodes with some review coverage, I think this needs to be speedy keep pending the result of that discussion. Additionally, these should be merged, not deleted. If push came to shove, ignoring all other factors (including the WT:TV discussion), I am certain that the bulk of these episodes have reviews out there that can be added (you can pick an episode to spot check but like taking "30 Days Without an Accident" a Google search brings up at least 4 sources for reviews (IGN, AVClub, EW, and Den of Geek). That said I again point to the WP:TV discussion that this reviews may be considered "routine" coverage by these sites, but that discussion needs more expansion and consideration before applying to these articles. --Masem (t) 01:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Procedural keep 80-odd articles is just too many for a single afd. Hog Farm _Bacon 07:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per
WP:SNOW. Start by nominating just Sick (The Walking Dead) (the only season 1 episode listed) for its own AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Procedural keep as it's near impossible for anyone to review these articles to determine if the AFD is valid or not. Multiply that by the impossibility of improving these articles if we were able to do the impossible and review all of them. It may be the case that some or even all (I'm doubtful) should be deleted but Wikipedia functions best when people are incremental. Jontesta (talk) 15:50, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Chalisa

Durga Chalisa (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 by author. Some sources exist, it is a popular hindu prayer, but this violates
WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is simply a copy/paste of the untranslated prayer lyrics. Polyamorph (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not the author of the page. I moved it from the draftspace where it was moved from mainspace because it didn't have any sources. Also wanted to give reference of Hanuman Chalisa - a similar prayer for a different god. This page has potential to be elaborated as broad Hanuman Chalisa. We can perhaps draftify again. Won't be in favor of deletion.

Palmsandbeaches (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHATABOUT is a weak argument here, the important thing is whether sources exist which would allow this to be expanded sufficiently beyond a simple listing of the verse. Some sources exist sure, but I can't find any which provide any real in depth coverage. I would support a re-draftification if users can demonstrated in-depth sources exist and a willingness to work on it (pointless re-drating if it isn't then worked on as will be automatically deleted in time anyway). Polyamorph (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete there are not sources giving indepth enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, there are multiple books about the verse [5], I think particularly this one is more relevant maybe [6]. Now that being said, there are no sources to add more information about let's say - history, who wrote it, how it became popular etc. So even if I will work on it, the best I would be able to do is add the Hunterian transliteration and then actual translation in English. If that's acceptable, draftify it and I will work on it. otherwise, delete.
Palmsandbeaches (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is the reason for a separate article, even though this is a known verse??? Kolma8 (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find much to support any form of notability. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this completely fails everything that is outlined in the first 3 paragraphs of
WP:GNG and does not benefit Wikipedia in any way. Spiderone 17:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Man Without Honor

A Man Without Honor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article fails
talk) 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they lack in-depth coverage and also fail
WP:GNG
:

Dark Wings, Dark Words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First of His Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mockingbird (Game of Thrones) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The House of Black and White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kill the Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose these be draftified as well.--TheVampire (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kill the Boy has a roundtable in The Atlantic, an IGN review and a Vanity Fair review. As with the similar Simpsons nomination, it's not a good idea to nominate a big batch of episodes when there are significant differences in coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: huge
WP:BEFORE failure here. Picked one at random, Second Sons. Noticed Rotten Tomatoes was cited—it's not good to quote its percentage unless there's at least 20 reviews, because then there's too much random fluctuation. But what do you know, there are 37 reviews for it. Most (not all) are reliable sources, including IndieWire, The Atlantic, The Observer, Collider, Daily Telegraph, TV.com, Entertainment Weekly, Den of Geek, Rolling Stone, Vulture, The Hollywood Reporter. Plenty to satisfy GNG. — Bilorv (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep: Most of these articles meet the basic guidelines of
and there is nothing wrong with a good stub. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Multiple reviews for each episode from reliable sources. That means they all pass GNG in my book. Rhino131 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh), Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid rationale for deletion has been presented here and it seems
WP:BEFORE was not carried out. It has been asserted that these episodes lack coverage but checking a few of them shows that some of these episodes have received more than 50 critic reviews on rotten tomatoes, including coverage from multiple reliable sources. as noted by Alucard 16 at least one of these episodes was nominated for multiple awards. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 17:58, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caio Henrique Siqueira Sanchez

Caio Henrique Siqueira Sanchez (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 25-minute appearance in the
WP:GNG as this does, the presumption isn't valid. Jogurney (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Sanchez meets our inclusion criteria for footballers they are ludicrously broad and need to be reconsidered, which is clearly the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the 25 minute cameo should in no way compensate for the fact that this completely fails GNG Spiderone 18:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - comprehensive failure of GNG is far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Current sources doesn't indicate how he passes
WP:GNG Sliekid (talk) 09:43, 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. Missvain (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lesiba Mothupi

Lesiba Mothupi (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 great big nothingburger. Fails
Fram (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Haha, I don't believe in "nothingburger", if only because such a modern compound should be two words, not one, but as two words it looks terrible so it has to be wrong, but everything else the nominator says I fully believe in: delete. One learns more about how deceptive digital media can be with every AfD--look at the byline, for instance. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete delete. This is all black hat SEO nonsense. Praxidicae (talk) 16:34, 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. Sandstein 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Fay (Producer)

William Fay (Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

spammy article about a production manager - not really a producer (though he has a few credits) with no meaningful in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per past outcomes. We usually delete articles about producers and managers. Just to be fair, I looked online and found only 22 passing references on Google news, a few mentions about his writing (in particular an episode of The Virginian), and zero newspaper articles. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Guida

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

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

xwiki vanity spam with pretty photos but ultimately a non-notable artist. The coverage is non-existent and what sources do exist aren't in-depth nor are tehy truly independent. Worth noting this has also been deleted 2x on eswiki (es:Giovanni Guida), 2x on itwiki (it:Giovanni Guida), on plwiki (pl:Giovanni Guida), on ptwiki (pt:Giovanni Guida), on ruwiki (ru:Гвида, Джованни) and while this isn't a reason to delete on enwiki itself, it's good evidence that it lacks the required coverage in any language. Praxidicae (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, crosswiki vanity spam is not welcome. Creating editor appears to have been a UPE. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wall o text by xwiki evading spammer Praxidicae (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the coverage, the artist's works have been described by journalists and writers of the most important Italian newspapers (below I put the link).the artist is known in the world for this pictorial technique and his icon has been exhibited in many important museums, basilicas and cathedrals in the world by museum directors, cardinals and bishops. source verification. here are the links: • https://www.ilmattino.it/napolismart/cultura/coronavirus_illustrazione_artista_campano_virale-5170287.html • https://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2019/05/08/salvini-e-di-maio-tetrarchi-guida--in-quellabbraccio-convenienzaNapoli17.html • https://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/2020/07/04/lopera-san-gennaro-in-grattageNapoli05.html?ref=search • https://www.corriereitaliano.com/cultura/arte-e-spettacolo/7050/unopera-darte-per-sconfiggere-la-pandemia/ • http://economymag.virtualcms.it/news/2018/05/03/news/il-viaggio-nel-mondo-dell-icona-di-san-cesario-di-terracina-1254/ • https://veryimportantlot.com/ru/news/blog/grattazh • https://rynekisztuka.pl/2019/07/10/egzotyczne-pojecie-grataz/ • https://www.republicain-lorrain.fr/edition-de-metz-agglo-et-orne/2016/04/15/sillegny-la-sixtine-de-la-seille-interpelle-l-italie • https://www.treccani.it/magazine/lingua_italiana/articoli/parole/parole_nel_turbine_2.html • https://www.treccani.it/magazine/lingua_italiana/articoli/scritto_e_parlato/dante_social.html • Annibale Pinotti, Artexpo. Storia dell'arte - linguaggio visivo, Atlas, 2019

Delete for several reasons. First off, the sources, both in the article and the collapsed list, are
would have to be started from scratch. Finally, based on certain marks we usually see, this is probably (although not certainly) paid editing. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. rewrite the text, synthesize the periods. The artist has created interesting works of art with a very particular technique.--WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply
]

Keep Edit the article. Use only the most authoritative notes, such as those of the main newspapers .. delete the other notes. The artist of Cesa has made several works that have had a proliferation in the world, so the page must be kept.--
WP:SOCKSTRIKE
Primefac: Could they be any more obvious? —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 00:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Vidan

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

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

This article has no reliable biographical sources (the closest thing is a profile in 'Solving Problems that Matter', a CreateSpace book that he contributed to), so I believe it does not meet
MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article not citing reliable references is not an indication that none exist, and should not be used as an argument for deleting the article. This individual exists, has won a notable award from the IEEE, and this article expands on this individual's biography from the limited description included in the parent IEEE article. Again, the individual exists and is notable, and the information in the article is accurate. Additional references exists (a quick search finds references from MIT, IEEE, etc.). I can understand the need to add references and expand on the article, but do not understand why there should be an argument to delete the article.TheNeutron (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — TheNeutron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Further review of the inclusion criteria for academics, this academic (Criteria #2) "has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" and (Criteria #8) was the "chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". Many of the other criteria can be hard to argue for many other existing persons, but even (Criteria #1) "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" can arguable be met, as this individual was an Invited Speaker based on his research by the American Physical Society. Again, references exist, this article can be expanded, but should not be deleted. TheNeutron (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — TheNeutron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
MrOllie (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Suggestion remains toKeep and not delete.~~ Information is accurate, let's expand on the article. This is after all Wikipedia. Criteria #1 I would agree with you, unless there is more here that we do not yet know and that we should allow the community to expand on. IEEE Technical Field Awards tend to be rather prestigious type of IEEE awards given. Procedia Engineering is through Elsevier, available on ScienceDirect, and tends to be an open access journal, which makes sense given the topic. TheNeutron (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, @TheNeutron: I have struck out your second bold "keep". You are only allowed one of those per AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Sorry - did not mean to do that twice.TheNeutron (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC).[reply
]
There is a clear need to find biographical information in an encyclopedia of persons of interest. We can continue to debate which of all the awards listed on IEEE awards is notable or top class, but the fact of the matter is, there is a list of articles of these awards and their recipients. I believe the community would like to have more than a mere mention of a name of a person, but to be able to click through and see a full article about the receipient. We have here what is the start of a good, well-referenced article about a person that arguably fits the notability criteria. I still do not see the merit of deletion rather than improving.TheNeutron (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this more and want to ask your consideration of the following: 1) Somewhat of an
MrOllie, and others, I would like to get your thoughts on this (as a new contributor): if you take a look at say one of the IEEE Technical Field Awards (which I would argue is a notable award) such as IEEE Robotics and Automation Award, are you really of the opinion that it would not be better to have each of the identified persons have an article? Again, as an encyclopedia, if you are researching this award, wouldn't you want to complete your research by being able to click on the 2005 recipient Seiuemon Inaba and understand why this person was given the award? Do we really want to lose this information? I may consider doing some research and add articles on these recipients, but I do not want them to be deleted! TheNeutron (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep Improve the article first. But it nominator has some argument.BlueD954 (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The argument above for keeping is that if we make articles on everybody who might possibly later become notable, we'll have the basis of a good quality article when they do. But this is utterly opposed to the basic principle of WP, the policy NOT INDISCRIMINATE. To carry it to an admittedly absurd length, if we make articles for everyone who gets a PhD, perhaps 1% will be notable. But the other articles will actually do harm being here, because then WP will become a directory, not an encyclopedia Similarly for minor awards--awards are a shortcut at WP:PROF, because major awards invariable go to academics who have published a good deal of very heavily cited work--it's the standard the profession uses. , but the basic criterion in science is publications. The expected level of an award to show. notability is that it's the highest level in the field on a national basis. DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that was really my argument, or my intention. We are not making a directory, but rather connecting the dots, filling in biographical information, on persons of interest that are mentioned elsewhere on WP. Again, the information in the article is accurate, and additional references exists. I still maitain a better option here is to improve, not delete. If you allow me time, I will look to add references and biographical information from reliable sources I can find, and look for your review. TheNeutron (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrOllie (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
MrOllie Fair point, I'll give you that. But please answer my question posed to you above. What's more of a directory? A list of award recipients names, or a rich encyclopedia that has articles with biographical information about the recipients? When I use an encyclopedia, I want more information, not less. In my question above, I honestly randomly chose Seiuemon Inaba as an example of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Award article that has no information, and after a bit of research, found that this individual actually just passed away after making significant achievements. No article exists about him - was there ever one? perhaps someone got discouraged from creating one? I may create one now , but would not want my efforts to get deleted... TheNeutron (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Citation counts are far too low for
talk) 17:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
So now this all just seems arbitrary. The individual has a article (in Nature) that experimentally verified a topic within quantum mechanics and superconductivity, with 200+ citations, received a Nature News/Views citation about it, received an Invited Talk by the American Physical Society, developed humanitarian technology being used by NATO and was editor of an Elsevier special edition journal; all this, and received an IEEE Technical Field Award. I'm sorry, but this seems like a worthwhile mention in WP, and links to other articles of interest across WP. For someone in the IEEE world, this is all very notable. I really don't understand the desire to delete accurate, factual information, rather than improve on it. This is very discouraging.
MrOllie, DGG Please reconsider changing your position, so we can reach a consensus. Thank you. TheNeutron (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Minor note: It seems like the 3 issues of the journal that was edited has about ~50 papers in each; so we are talking about editing a special journal with 150 articles over 3 different editions.TheNeutron (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being published in Nature doesn't make a person notable. (For example, I have been, and I'm not.) Similar remarks apply to all the other points you raise: many, many people are "invited speakers" at APS meetings; many, many people edit special issues of journals. Vidan simply does not yet stand out from his field in a documentable way. I encourage you to browse
talk) 18:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Editing a special issue of a journal is not notability . Even I've done it. Giving a talk at a society meeting however prestigeous, is not notability , essentially everyone with a PhD has done it. I've had an article written about in Nature News, and nobody has paid any attention to it since.

But rechecking the one thing that really matters, the citations to his articles,, I see 213 (work when a-student), 294 ,(also based on his phd work) 14, 2, 1, The papers with the highest citations are normally what we look for, but these are not indepdent work. The triple quantum dots work is uncited; many others have published well cited papers on the topic

From the lack of knowledge of our standards shown above, and argued repetitively, and the lack of work on any other subject here, and especially the failure to respond when notified about our rules on COI editing on the user talk page., I conclude that the prurpose of this is promotion of a scientist. who is very borderline at best. The combination of clear promotionalism , and very borderline notability , is a clear reason for deletion--either alone would be sufficient. The probably undeclared coi makes the necessary conclusion obvious. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find DGG's analysis both of the citation counts (i.e. why we should discount the two high-citation works and look at the bigger pattern) and of the promotionalism on show here persuasive. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, DGG and otherss: Apologies for the "repetitive arguements," but my frustrations here stems from 1) Accomplishments taken each on their own, and not as a collective. (Yes, understanding the criteria of Notability). One may have a Nature article, and yes, one may have an Invited Talk (which is very different and not common such as regular conference talks), and one may have yet another accomplishment. But collectively, the pattern here is taken together, plus a notable award, is what in my mind creates a justification for this article to be improved and not delete. 2) It seems unjustifiable that our awards within the IEEE, of which we do not have many and these Technical Field Awards are, as the name implies, meant to signify a significant award in a specific field of study, should be considered not notable. I certainly believe, and I hope others do as well, that all recipients of our IEEE technical Field Awards are deserving of an article. Finally, I am not sure of, and apologies for, not responding to the COI concern earlier. I took that as an alert, not something that required a response. There is no COI on my end. I would just like to fill out these recipients, and not have actual, factual information removed from WP. TheNeutron (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More unsolicited advice: go read
WP:BADGER. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

TheNeutron is the creator of and major contributor to this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Looks
WP:BLUDGEONing of the process and strong hints of COI don't help convince me that we'd be better off keeping. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per DGG, who's a former academic and someone I trust. As a former college teacher myself, while editing a journal or textbook is "an honor", it's not an award in academia, it's your job. Calling it an honor is an insult to the scut-puppies who get paid $120 to edit a monograph. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Eaglesfield

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sarah Eaglesfield

Articles for deletion/Sarah Eaglesfield (2nd nomination)

Sarah Eaglesfield (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 reach the notability standard either as a musician, an "innovator in digital music space", or a news analyst. References provided do not give the depth of coverage required by
WP:BIO. Note that her band, Flightside is currently proposed for deletion also. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only keep vote is from the same ip address belonging to the page subject, who also maintains the page and keeps removing the AFD 10Gbit (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this qanon grifter is using this wikipedia page to create legitimacy in order to further a gofundme scam users scam. there are plenty of living qanon musicians, self published authors, and fake data scientists that dont have a wikipedia page and we should probably keep it that way. Living person? check. Notable? not really. Vanity edits? absolutely -> malwaretechblog shows self edits trophymaker ltd registration. delete? yah. post haste. please also note that the *strong keep: vote below is the actual user in question. the ip 62.31.81.43 is registered to her company trophymaker ltd. look at the edit history (talk). finally, here is subject claiming they have wikipedia blocked. subject claims to have wikipedia blocked but can still vote on this talk page. gg sarah. gg. 2603:6010:5209:FF01:7490:BAB:F587:7A24 (talk)

Strong Keep page vandalized constantly over last 24 hours. subject being targeted for abuse online. 2.5k+ Wiki pageviews this month, she was on TV & featured on Crowder this week. We should not tolerate bullying. 62.31.81.43 (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article also appears to have had significant edits from the subject themselves, falling foul of the Vanity rule? Research from MalwareTechBlog's Twitter IgnoredAmbience (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP:POINT WP:DOGPILE please stick to the convention of debate. This is no place to attack each other and obviously a personal vendetta against Sarah. Vandals removed the new links that were added today and made inappropriate defamatory changes. Many of whom are same people voting here. Page is years old and has already met WP:N requirements. It was under patrol. New references added after original AfD removed. Bad faith action. Speedy keep.92.40.184.82 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person fails notability. There is as far as I can tell no RS coverage from which to construct an article.
talk) 13:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete since everything seems to be passing brief mentions on personal blogs, track listings of the bands work, or dead links. I'm not seeing any reliable in-depth that addresses the person directly and in detail though. So, this article fails the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (re?)created by a sockpuppeteer used to biographies of non-notable people, and rather clumsily populated by none other than the subject. This plus an absence of sources says enough. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Adamant1. The presented sources do not indicate notability, especially junk like discogs, musicbrainz and youtube. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Adamant1. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a place for people to promote themselves. We are not going to be the next mysapce.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. No evidence of any kind of notability. Article has been recreated and edited by a sock farm and IP that appear to have a COI with the article subject. The majority of the sourcing in the article is junk, and the good quality sources (e.g. the BBC) do not appear to be about the subject.

Also the IP editor that wrote the article is repeatedly removing the AfD template from it, can someone put it back and protect the article? 192.76.8.93 (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt Clearly fails
talk 20:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published author, songwriter, blue tick Twitter and popular Wiki page (has been vandalized again today). WP:PATROL Noviateobe (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC) — Noviateobe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naturesave trust

Naturesave trust (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 promotional to an extent and fails in passing
WP:NCORP Sliekid (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sliekid (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most ethical insurance companies [8] and there are sufficient sources with information on it or related to it [9] [10]. Appears to meet NCORP to me. Mathias (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The insurance company isn't the subject of this article, though, the trust is, and notability
WP:INHERITORG is not inherited. (And when I say 'notability', I'm not suggesting that the insurance company is notable, either; in fact, this earlier AfD concluded it wasn't.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Unsourced promo piece on a minor corporate greenwashing initiative. Could not find a single RS reference, never mind sigcov. Fails
WP:ORG, and even basic verifiability (beyond the existence of the organisation) is dubious. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - does not even come close to satisfying
WP:NORG Spiderone 22:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Music Awards UK

Ghana Music Awards UK (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 of this award has no evidence of Notability , most of the sources provided are Not relieble sources, it fails Wikipedia Notability Samat lib (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Samat lib (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samat lib - Doing some reserach, I found this, this and this. I take it none of these are particularly great source choices, right? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. the few sources provided on the article are press released, advertisment , none of them are relieble sources that are independent of the subject, with significant discussion of the subject @Foxnpichu again the topic of this article fail to meet Wikipedia Notability , Samat lib (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia is NOT the right place for promotions or advert Samat lib (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'm going to say Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be enough reliable coverage to support notability.Star7924 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Druid

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

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

Current sources doesn't meets
WP:GNG Sliekid (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Does Vastina House pass
WP:NBUILD? Appreciate a second opinion. Heritage listing? Irish Times Spiderone 12:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:NORG. Might be something in here that's notable, but it's not currently in this article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I don't see it listed in the Westmeath county listing of Irish national monuments here. ww2censor (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GEOFEAT. Yes, several buildings here are listed on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage.[11][12][13][14] But repurpose and rename, as Vastina House is the main topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: While you found Vastina House in the inventory, it is not a listed historic building, so I think without better coverage even under that name it is not notable enough. ww2censor (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be National Monuments, but I think inclusion on the NIAH meets the requirements of
WP:GEOFEAT. Buildings of Regional importance (which Vastina House and two other buildings are) are classified as Protected Sites by the Irish government, so yes, they are listed historic buildings at a national level. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. A correction here. As I have seen the NIAH mentioned (and misrepresented) in other AfD discussions.

The NIAH catalogue is not a record of
protected structures. Just because Vastina House is listed in the NIAH it does not, de facto, mean that it is a protected structure. Any more than these four steps in Wexford are protected. Or this 1980s postbox in Dublin
is protected. They are not.

Vastina House however is a
protected structure. Not because it was catalogued by the NIAH. But because it was included by Westmeath County Council on their Record of Protected Stuctures (ref # 032-006)
.

In short, yes, Vastina House is a protected structure. And may meet GEOFEAT as a result. But not because of its NIAH listing. The NIAH is not a catalogue of protected protected. It's just not.

Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a problem if someone wants to write an article on Vestina House, which may or may not be notable, but at the moment, this is not that article, which is about a non-notable wedding venue organisation, not a building. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per SportingFlyer, Vastina House might be notable as a separate article but the wedding venue is not. Reywas92^Talk 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
William, Duke of Cambridge might be an exception), and I don't see how two articles about it means significant coverage. To be blunt, it's run of the mill. Creating an article on one building owned by the facility would demand a complete re-write. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Per nom,
protected structures, but that does not mean the company associated with them inherits any notability. Any more than people or businesses associated with Westmeath protected structure # 019-041 (a drainage system vent) or # 019-065 (a section of limestone kerbing) might do. Protected structures are not automatically notable. Businesses are not automatically notable. Businesses associated with protected structures are not automatically notable. There is no evidence that this business meets any other notability criteria.) Guliolopez (talk) 02:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeafTalent

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

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

Fails GNG. Nominating with a heavy heart, but I can find no other example of a hashtag, rather than the event, person or cause behind it, being the focus of an article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about Deaf actors or about Deaf representivity in film or the performing arts in general is almost certainly possible, but this blurb about a hashtag is not it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable because there is significant coverage in reliable sources about the hashtag per Wikipedia:Notability. Furthermore, it is unnecessary to isolate the hashtag from the related cause. It is like saying an article titled with a person's name needs to focus on that name rather than who the person is. As for examples of other hashtags, Category:Hashtags exists, and some hashtag examples are YesAllWomen, PublishingPaidMe, StopExecutionsinIran, and ICanHazPDF. Regarding the possibility of an article about Deaf actors, certainly one is possible and encouraged but does not contradict this article. However, the hashtag encompasses more than just acting. 258 (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 258 There doesn't seem to be much depth of sourcing about the hashtag itself, thus its notability is doubtful. The issues behind the hashtag, on the other hand, are undoubtedly notable, so it would be much better to create one or more articles about the issues. Take a look at Disability in the arts and the related articles it links to, as an example of how the topic could be covered. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that there can be additional articles about Deaf creative talent, but that is not a reason to not to have an article about this hashtag. There do not appear to be guidelines regarding hashtags, but generally speaking, hashtags represent Internet activism that form in response to specific matters. It is likely with most or many such hashtags, there is a cultural or historical backdrop available. However, a hashtag is often a distinct rallying-around framing that has its own characteristics, like specific works being responded to and what results from the hashtag's use. For example, I've added that National Endowment for the Arts set up a roundtable discussion in response to the hashtag. 258 (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my !vote due to the additional content contributed by
WP:GNG. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Agree with above. For my part, we can close as keep. Thanks 258 Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pešta

Daniel Pešta (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 Notability for artists. What appear to be ‘major’ exhibitions are in fact vanity exhibitions: Florence Biennale, Venice Pallazo Bemba, London Art Biennale, etc. The museum collections are not verifiable. DrAk Foundation and the Museum Montanelli are both Private institutions founded by his wife Dadja Altenburg-Kohl.
In searching for the museums, this is what I learned:

Only Reference to “Museum F. (Statues for a Baroque Niche, Klatovy, Czech Republic” is in his own bio. Searching without “Statues for a Baroque Niche,” yields nothing at all. No museum.

Museum exists, it is a historical museum, but unverifiable as to the collection. https://www.rommuz.cz/en/museum/about-us/

I couldn’t find any “National Museum of Posters, Mexico City”

DOX doesn’t seem to have a collection https://www.dox.cz/en/about-us Theredproject (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the claims are inflated, false, exaggerated or of no importance, giving the article a serious verifiability issue. Vanity spam. Possibly (talk) 17:17, 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 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kundu Special

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

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

Does not meet
WP:ORGSIG. The article has existed since 2007 but it is a pretty promo article for the business. Roller26 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A brochureware article about a tour company. As well as the advertorial TelegraphIndia item, searches find various passing mentions: in blogs, in news reports about tour groups stranded by natural disasters, but I am not seeing the
notability. AllyD (talk) 14:32, 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 22:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RTGame

RTGame (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 don't believe he meets
WP:GNG based on the available sourcing. The article from The Verge is good, but there's just nothing else that matches it, and we can't keep an article based on one source. The Dextero article is basically fluff, and neither 2oceansvibe nor StylesRant (which primarily produces content about...hair) strike me as reliable sources. Anything else I found was just name-drops, nothing even close to the article from The Verge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "The streamer who built a giant Starbucks island in Minecraft to connect with fans" from The Verge definitely counts as one. Beyond that, we have a few different sources that are clearly significant, independent, and secondary, but which are somewhat borderline in reliability. Looking at them:
Dextero (which published "RTGame goes crazy after spending 13 days to finally catch shiny Pokemon") is an e-sports news website; it looks alright enough to me, but e-sports is decidedly not my area of expertise.

Oceans2vibe (which published "Four Gaming Channels Your Non-Gaming Partner Will Actually Watch With You") looks like a small, general-purpose South African news site. The fact that they don't give a full author name isn't great, but apart from that I don't have reason to distrust its reliability more than any other local news publication.

StylesRant (which published "Are Plumbella and RTgame dating? All you need to know") is, as you say, a fashion publication, but I don't see writing about a gamer's relationship as out of depth for such a publication, and it's not really our job to judge whether their articles are sufficiently topical for their brand. Based on this author bio, they appear to edit submissions, which is a marker of reliability. (We should also be careful not to inadvertently fall back on any gendered stereotypes about style publications not being serious enough for WP.)

Lastly, I just added a Cultured Vultures article that talks about RTGame deserving credit for the Minecraft Renaissance. It looks to be another gaming publication, and it likewise indicates that its stories are edited.

So, where that leaves us is one clearly qualifying source and four that are each borderline, but could each plausibly be argued to qualify. I'd like to hear from an editor or two with more gaming articles experience before casting a formal !vote, but based on the above I'm leaning towards keep. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just cannot take seriously the fact that any website producing a fluff piece that consists of "wow a dude catches a Pokemon, it sure took him awhile" is supposed to be an indication of notability. I can't. I'm too old.
2oceansvibe is a "solely-owned online news platform", ie, it's basically no more than a multi-contributor blog. Their about page makes a biiiiiiig deal about their clickthroughs and marketing partnerships, and doesn't waste a breath telling you about their editorial process or contributors, so no, we can't assume it's reliable. In any case, the "article" cited is a listicle that has three sentences of content, so it hardly counts as in-depth coverage.
StylesRant is a comically low-audience hairstyle blog, and the content in question is little more than a tabloid piece. Are they dating? Are they not? Who knows? It's not about "gender stereotypes" (but thanks for assuming I'm a man, I guess) it's about the fact that we shouldn't be taking what amounts to clickbait gossip from low-audience publications as a reliable source of notability.
Finally, the Cultured Vulture article you added spends three sentences mentioning RTGame in an article about Minecraft generally. Once again, it's not in-depth coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is good enough to pass
WP:GNG with the sources indicated by Sdkb. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Superastig, I know you have this thing where you don't respond to comments at AfD, but did you actually look at the sources in question? Aside from The Verge, how do you defend the others as being in-depth or reliable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Verge is the only encyclopedia-quality source in the above list. The rest are not known for having quality standards. czar 00:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While The Verge is a
WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Dexerto, while a usable source, is considered unreliable per
WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Given the above, I'm persuaded that the Dextero piece probably doesn't count. I could still see a case for GNG being made that uses the StylesRant piece, but if that's not persuasive to others, it looks like the page may not be ready for mainspace yet. It's fairly plausible that another piece to supplement the Verge profile one will come along at some point, though, so I'd request draftification over deletion to make it easier to bring back should such coverage come along. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not trying to hassle you, but can you explain in what way you see StylesRant as being a reliable indicator of notability? It is effectively a click-farming blog that primarily produces listicles about hairstyles, which of late appears to be attempting to pivot into "reporting" tabloid-level YouTuber gossip. I'm frankly not even sure one of their four contributors is a real human, considering I found zero social media under his name and his photo only pops up on stock sites. One of the others only ever "wrote" one article, so basically it's a two-person blog.
In terms of audience reach, although this isn't a perfect metric, their Twitter has 43 followers. Total. For comparison, beauty blog
LADbible, which sometimes reports on YouTuber news, has 2.5 million. Being mentioned on StylesRant is no more an indicator of "significant attention by the world at large" than being mentioned on my personal tumblr would be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
PMC, it's not any hassle; discussion is appropriate here. I'm looking at this from a fairly by-the-book GNG lens (if we were going in more of an IARish direction, the case would be that the sources establish RTGame has had a meaningful enough impact on the world that an encyclopedic stub about him is a net positive). From that lens, what's important is whether the source is reliable and independent, not whether it's high-audience. It's clearly independent, since it's got no affiliation whatsoever to RTGame; if anything, the fact that it's style-focused rather than gaming-focused is a plus, since it shows that there's general interest in him beyond just ultra-niche gaming circles. And regarding reliability, as I mentioned above, I noticed that an author bio on the site has Rice is the senior editor for StylesRant.Com, with a focus on writing and editing stories. That indicates that they're editing the work they publish, which is enough for me to deem it reliable for the basic facts it's supporting in the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rice is the only active contributor to the site; if she's editing anything, it's her own work, without oversight or independent fact-checking. Therefore, the site is no more than a
self-published source, and an SPS should never be used to determine notability, especially for a BLP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Looking at the site's history, it seems the three other contributors listed haven't published anything in a few months, so that moves me into agreement with you about StylesRant. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:36, 6 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 Materialscientist (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kapdi Abhishek

Kapdi Abhishek (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 of the article fails to meet
reliable sources cited in the page. PROD was removed as well from page. Lord Grandwell (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lord Grandwell (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Actor has only been in one short film. ... discospinster _talk 14:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being notable as either an actor or as a filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Persistent removal of AFD and PROD tags. Most recently the author removed AFD tag which i have reverted back. Lord Grandwell (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tried to clean up the obvious junk refs from the BLP, but there's just not much left. Did not find any other sources after looking around. Kuru (talk) 13:20, 2 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. For the record, the entirety of the (unsourced) content was "AlHuriyah was the first feminist Arabic daily newspaper." Sandstein 22:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlHuriyah

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

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

Zero indications this meets
WP:BEFORE search didn't even turn up any indications of a periodical with this name in English. That search threw up "الحرية" (meaning Freedom) as a possible Arabic name, so I searched that and found nothing either. Ar.wiki has two articles about newspapers with that name (ar:(الحرية_(صحيفة and ar:(الحرية (صحيفة سودانية, but neither article mentions feminism. I tried "الحرية" + "نسوية" (meaning feminism) but got nothing for that either. I'm stumped. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also stumped after searching in Arabic, also for حورية (not likely, but perhaps possible for an older title). The article creator did a run of articles about the press in Kuwait so I searched for that specifically, also searched in conjunction with نسوية. Nothing. No idea what this was about. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are way past the point we should tolerate any unsourced articles in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 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 22:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Lamont

Glenn Lamont (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 TV actor, sourced only to
WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is far past time we stopped allowing any articles to stand sourced only to IMDb. IMDb is notorious for falsely conflating as one multiple people with the same name among other problems. It has also on occasion created pages on entirely fictional actresses and actors that it treated as real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also seen at least two instances of split filmographies for a single actor.

WP:HEY work. Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 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 no consensus.
No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Eidetic (film)

Eidetic (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)

Short film produced as part of student's Masters thesis. Claim of "first Sri Lankan short film to be screened at the San Diego Comic-Con's International Independent Film Festival" does not establish notability. Awards in student film categories does not either.
talk) 01:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has substantial coverage in multiple Sri Lankan reliable sources already in the article such as The Sunday Times here and the Daily News. Also AFDs should not be started as a result of an editing dispute as per
Wikipedia:SKCRIT, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Could you please
talk) 00:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 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 redirect to Arizona World War II Army Airfields. Missvain (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colfred, Arizona

Colfred, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

This article is a mess to begin with because it juxtaposes two subjects. The airfield is not really independently notable: it was one of the
Yuma Army Air Field
(the latter long since reconfigured as a USMC base) and variously abandoned or repurposed at war's end. The only source I could find of any length was an SPS on abandoned airports. As best I can tell it never operated as anything like a regular airport, either civilian or military.
Colfred itself was not a settlement; it was yet another in a series of passing sidings on the SP line across southern Arizona. It appears to have been taken up relatively early as these things go, as there's no trace of it in a 1953 aerial other than the telltale swerve of old US 80 to make room for it; Gmaps shows that the line was a some point double-tracked, and there is now a very short siding. There's also no trace of anything else, and no buildings appear until the 1960s, and GMaps claims that it is part of a farm. I can see making
Colfred Army Air Field a redirect to appropriately merged material, but this article itself needs to just go away. Mangoe (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Colfred, Arizona should redirect there also. MB 18:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The editors above tell us that they have or will merge material and so deletion is unacceptable -- see
WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:AFD makes clear that merge and redirect are acceptable votes and outcomes. Existence of a place name does not mandate a separate article and its origin alone is not adequate content for an article nor establishes notability. No evidence this is a notable populated place. Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Arizona World War II Army Airfields. The attribution from the merge rules out deletion, but there's no reason to keep this as an article when it's been proven to not be a notable community and a redirect would serve for attribution in the edit history. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arizona World War II Army Airfields, the useful content has already been merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Poland

List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Poland (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 any
Fram (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Italy, appears to be original research merely based on their surnames; little indication to what extent these were actually used by these individuals in either personal or official capacity. Reywas92^Talk 09:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial list, no sources, fails
WP:NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Unsourced trivia. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. killer bee  06:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of presidents of France

Armorial of presidents of France (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 any
Fram (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Italy, this is heavily original research with little indication that these were actually used by these individuals in either personal or official capacity. Reywas92^Talk 09:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced. DrKay (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this isn't politically notable, but it is relevant in terms of heraldry, history and presidential symbols. -
Ssolbergj (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
"Relevant" for what? They aren't presidential symbols, they are personal symbols (if they are even correct). It's not more relevant than their star signs, blood types or favourite music.
Fram (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi. They are relevant in terms of heraldry and French history. Information on heraldic emblems and other types of symbols of notable and powerful figures of state are commonplace in encyclopedias. E.g.
Ssolbergj (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The current website of the Elysee mention's Giscard d'Estaing's emblem for example. The presidents of France follow the previous kings of France as head of state. And royal arms are particularly important in European history, so this article really isn't far-fetched IMO. -
Ssolbergj (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
You seem to have the article confused with
National emblem of France. DrKay (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I'm aware that a president's arms is not an
Ssolbergj (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of presidents of Germany

Armorial of presidents of Germany (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 any
Fram (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Italy, this is heavily original research with little indication to what extent these were actually used by these individuals in either personal or official capacity. Reywas92^Talk 09:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Three of the arms shown are not personal arms but arms of the office extrapolated from the presidential standard. The majority of the entries are not sourced. The salvageable content can be moved to the articles of the individual presidents. DrKay (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially original research; no evidence that any sources make a connection between personal coats of arms and the presidency. —Kusma (t·c) 21:26, 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 22:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of Governors-General and Presidents of South Africa

Armorial of Governors-General and Presidents of South Africa (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 any
Fram (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Italy, little indication to what extent these were actually used by these individuals in either personal or official capacity. Reywas92^Talk 09:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A collection of arms of (or attributed to) notable people linked only by the fact that they all had a similar job is not in itself notable. ("Similar job": because Governor-General, State President and President are not the same role.) Humansdorpie (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion regarding deletion but ensure that any encyclopaedic content is split and merged into the articles about the relevant people before deletion. (if it is not already there) · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails LISTN and GNG, does not serve a navigation purpose, so CLN does not apply. // Timothy :: talk 22:37, 6 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) 14:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leon King

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

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

Fails
WP:GNG
. Recommend delete or, alternatively, send to draft.

[16] - routine announcement about signing a new contract

[17] - signing a new contract

[18] - announcement that he is training with first team squad

[19]] - signing new contract

[20] - praise from Gerrard after making debut against Falkirk Spiderone 08:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFOOTBALL, as has not played in a competitive match between two teams both from
WP:FPLs. No evidence of notability via GNG. Giant Snowman 11:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete total and complete fail of footballer notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Bring Em Home

Let's Bring Em Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has been here since 2007. It’s about a very small scale charity and I very much doubt that it meets
WP:NORG. There may be local press coverage in the States that I can’t access. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails primary criteria of
WP:NORG as it lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's references are either archived or dubious and the organisation or organization appears to be minor. BlueD954 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Barber

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

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

The article fails
WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack the sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If deleted, The Barber (disambiguation) will need to be moved to the basename, leaving a redirect behind. Narky Blert (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:49, 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 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asiricomedy

Asiricomedy (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 pass
WP:NBIO. References are interviews and Amazon listings, lacks evidence of non-routine events for a comedian. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 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 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont Access to Health Services

Piedmont Access to Health Services (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 the
t • c) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
t • c) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
t • c) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
t • c) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
t • c) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Most sources are either trivial mentions or about federal awards that this health company received. Also, many of them are within the context of the current pandemic, so is seemingly temporary notability, which is not valid notability to warrant an article. I think it does not meet GNG or NCORP. Mathias (talk) 02:58, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stewarts, California

Stewarts, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

1913 topo shows a ranch named Stewarts Ranch at the site; it's later covered over by the community of Deep Springs. Newspapers.com is down at the moment, but I can't find anything on Google books that suggests this was a community or anything other than a ranch. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Yes I suppose a ranch is a "settlement" but that doesn't mean it's notable. Negligent mass-produced junk. Reywas92^Talk 10:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

still creating essentially bare geographical articles. They are an admin. At what point is this simply considered disruptive editing? FOARP (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know. I will note that these California ones are mostly from 2009 and 2010. I simply do not have the knowledge of relevant languages to look at the Azerbaijan stubs, and I have no idea where even to begin looking for sources. I don't feel qualified in any way, shape, or form to offer an opinion on the validity of the recent non-US ones. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the classic problem of creating hundreds of non-notable micro-stubs being easier than having them deleted. FOARP (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Azerbaijan article was from 2008, he recently created a redirect. Yes this person's junk extends far beyond the US (and obviously his expertise) but at least he's not particularly active anymore; last year he mass-created articles about archaeological sites and passed them off as automatically notable former settlements from and atlas of Ancient Greece. But yes all of these disruptive perma-substubs should be bulk-deleted, and this presumption that one person can make articles in seconds without a second thought while it takes a weeklong discussion of multiple people doing actual research to correct individual errors pisses me off. Reywas92^Talk 19:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Not in GNIS. Searching Newspapers.com was tricky because there is Stewarts Point California and a few Stewarts Ranches around, but I found nothing. JSTOR had nothing. Cxbrx (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mass created junk article.
WP:GEOLAND fail. FOARP (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Beese

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

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

This article neither meets WP:SIGCOV nor WP:BIO Ew3234 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, practically unsourced BLP (links are dead), no evidence for significant coverage. —Kusma (t·c) 21:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:BASIC; he's won some awards for his work but there is no evidence of the sourcing required to get a biographical article to remain here Spiderone 22:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1 Riverside Drive

1 Riverside Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Probably eligible for
WP:SPEEDY: single-entry disambiguation page which lists an entry — 1 Riverside Drive (Manhattan) — without an article. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per
WP:G14. Narky Blert (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete to allow uninhibited Search, which shows another occurrence in Enwiki of a different 1 Riverside Drive. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there are two buildings with the address (and likely others), but they don't appear to be known as their address; let search do its job, per User:Shhhnotsoloud -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G14 as above Spiderone 21:12, 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 speedy keep. In addition to
(non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Vinod Prasad Yadav

Vinod Prasad Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

These politicians have won one or two elections, and nothing more is their on web to expand there biography.
talk) 03:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be something in Bihari. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Politicians who have held statewide office in a federated state (which India is) are presumed notable according to
WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Per
WP:NPOL - "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians [...] who [...] (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) [...] have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." India is in that class of country, just like e.g. USA. Narky Blert (talk) 09:43, 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 speedy keep. In addition to
(non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Munna Yadav

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

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

These politicians have won one or two elections, and nothing more is their on web to expand there biography.
talk) 03:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be something in Bihari. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Politicians who have held statewide office in a federated state (which India is) are presumed notable according to
WP:NPOL. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Per
WP:NPOL - "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians [...] who [...] (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) [...] have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." India is in that class of country, just like e.g. USA. Narky Blert (talk) 09:41, 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 22:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Nation

William H. Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails
WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Seems like there are many such articles - the soldier has ABC award, article is written. BlueD954 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in
WP:GNG. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:28, 4 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.
9thx my edits! 09:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Undercover Burns

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

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

To simply put it, the article fails
talk) 01:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail
WP:GNG
:

I, Carumbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Now Museum, Now You Don't (The Simpsons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

~~Treehouse of Horror XXXI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

The 7 Beer Itch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Podcast News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Three Dreams Denied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This show has been on the air for 30 years and each episode has its own article. Bkatcher (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not stating a position (yet)~~ but just a reply to @
WP:OTHERCONTENT. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 14:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

With the above said:
Keep all "~~Treehouse of Horror XXXI"~~

Neutral: "Undercover Burns"

Delete the rest: per nom.

Just from a quick glance "Treehouse of Horror XXXI" seems to have enough sources independent of the subject to prove notability, "Undercover Burns" is awfully close. ~~The rest seem to be primarily sourced from press releases and tweets from the showrunners which don't meet~~
~~WP:GNG.~~ TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

After reviewing the articles more in depth, those below bring up some good points. Also with the concurrent discussion here they should be kept. If there is a more serious problem with any of these they can be nominated individually. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I very quick look shows '7 Beer Itch' has a source from 'Variety.' 'These Dreams Denied' has sources from 'Entertainment Weekly' and 'The Daily Beast.' 'I, Carumbus' has references from 'The Yorkshire Telegraph' and the 'Belfast Daily Post.' Bkatcher (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 14:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep there are 650+ episodes of the Simpsons and there are reviews and production info for all of them (AV Club for example reviews every episode). I don't believe any episode would fail GNG. Many probably do need cleanup and improvement though. Regardless, if users want to start a discussion about whether every Simpsons episode should have an article, it should be done somewhere else and not by selectively nominating a few here. They are either largely notable or largely not; it would be strange to say almost all are notable but these couple are not. Rhino131 (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

My argument is not based on the fact the articles exist, but that there is coverage enough for all of them, including these, to pass GNG. I still say keep. Rhino131 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 18:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Treehouse of Horror episodes always get coverage; this one has articles from Screen Rant, Yahoo and Den of Geek. If you're going to nominate a batch of articles, you shouldn't include episodes that are pretty clearly notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

If there are significant differences between the articles, then you should withdraw the nomination, and nominate the articles individually. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I click on the first thing on the list and see references, it getting reviewed. Stop wasting everyone's time. Every episode of this popular show gets ample coverage s passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 16:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I was thinking of Undercover Burns as the first, and it clearly passes general notability guidelines, so I didn't bother looking at the rest. Apparently as the ratings have gone down over the decades its been on, not every episode gets multiple reviews anymore. Having articles for over 90% of the episodes, but not all of them seems incomplete, and nothing gained by deleting just some of them. I say let them be.
WP:IAR Dream Focus 17:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all not seeing any merit to mass deletion, would suggest listing them separatly if you try again. Artw (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and I would say the same at individual nominations. Den of Geek, AVClub and the ratings (much larger than some TV shows in countries with smaller populations whose episodes are notable) are GNG-sufficient, when taken in addition with the phenomenal amount of academic attention that The Simpsons has received and will undoubtedly continue to receive. If you want more, I have no doubt that foreign-language reliable reviews exist as this show is broadcast in so many countries. — Bilorv (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per
WP:VAGUEWAVE. Nominator has also displayed a strong misunderstanding of notability guidelines in several nominations. Perhaps they could benefit from a mentorship? I don't think these nominations are in bad faith. Dark knight 2149 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@Darkknight2149: I find the mentorship comment highly disrespectful and urge you to reword or strike. — Bilorv (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended to be disrespectful. It was a genuine suggestion based on the user's past rationales. This is one example of them not fully understanding notability guidelines, and if memory serves, they filed a few of these with identical rationales in a row. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Triggerfinger_(The_Walking_Dead) is a more recent example. Dark knight 2149 20:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reviewing all the episodes involved in this AFD with the GNG guidelines I can't find one article that fails GNG. The articles meet significant coverage, have reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. My only issue comes in a case like I, Carumbus where 4 of the 10 sources are Tweets from Al Jean which would fall under self published and primary sources. However this doesn't compromise the article I would just suggest to the editors and article creators to include more reliable, secondary sources and to expand the production sections out. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion - I think that fans of WP:NAD. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Got that fixed. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it would be better to nominate the articles individually to allow more space and time for editors to present their arguments either to keep or delete (or other options entirely) rather than doing this kind of mass nominations. I have admittedly done some in the past, but I just think individual nominations are more beneficial. That is just my opinion though.
Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. That's why bundled nominations are almost always a fail. Chose THE WORST episode and nominate it, and we will discuss it. Otherwise, inclusionist fans of the show will just build an easy straw man and derail this with little effort. QED. (Oh, and they may be right, there could be reliable reviews for all the episodes, I am not going to check it now - again, don't bundle those kind of noms!). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of these episodes seem to have plenty of coverage to show they pass
alternatives to deletion
that should have been considered here, such as merging the content to the article on the series, something that can take place outside of a deletion discussion.

I really don't understand BaldiBasicsFan's argument that these articles fail
WP:NAD, These episodes have already aired and recieved coverage, the article doesn't predict anything, and none of these pages are dictionary definitions. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above arguments. Unlike the majority of other shows, I don't think an episode of The Simpsons would fail
talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - all notable by
WP:GNG. A few of these only have one or two reviews each which is borderline. They can be expanded. Archrogue (talk) 19:19, 6 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.
9thx my edits! 09:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Chandos Hoskyns (British soldier)

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 meet
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment As a Lieutenant General isn’t he presumed notable? Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He would be, if he wasn't a lieutenant colonel. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Time for a visit to the opticians. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant awards either. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The obituary in The Times and other coverage such as the Imperial War Museum and the extensive accounts of the
alternatives to deletion applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The Times obituary and coverage in books about the Siege of Calais and Rifle Brigade histories meet
WP:GNG requirements, regardless of the significance of the battle. Since GNG is met, NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Kges1901 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The Times has two promising results. [21] [22] I agree that if his actions are covered in books, and he part of a notable event, plus the Imperial War Museum believes him notable, then he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 11:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meeting GNG is sketchy here. The museum has his papers, and a paragraph of biography, same for what I see in books. Is a paragraph enough to meet GNG requirement of in-depth coverage? This is very borderline and I could vote weak keep or delete either way, hence - abstain. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The essential quality of sources is not their length but their
verbiage... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. While The Times obituary is a short one, it is far more than a mere notice of death and is accompanied by a tribute. I think these push him over the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, no clear awards, if not then many other similar lieutenant colonels, wing commanders and commanders during his time should be written and kept. BlueD954 talk) 15:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
logical fallacies all. We are discussing this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It is interesting to compare the current FA with this topic as it was mostly written by the nominator. That article is about a formation that seems to have existed mainly on paper. When it came to the crunch, it appears that its disaffected conscripts either didn't show up, deserted or surrendered at the first convenient opportunity. We are told that its "notable commander" was Dragoslav Stefanović but there isn't an article about them even though they were nominally a general. It's not clear that that person ever saw action or did anything worth recording. The article is silent on many other details such as the number of horses in the formation and the manner in which they were supposed to fight – as dismounted infantry, with lances, sabres or whatever. This demonstrates that military effectiveness and history is not just a matter of the amount of gold braid that you have but that fighting spirit and devotion to duty are essential. Chandos Hoskyns fought and was wounded in both world wars and we have comparatively good accounts of this. We should not delete such a well-documented soldier while reserving a place for Dragoslav Stefanović because the latter nominally outranked him. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_November_30&oldid=993248676"~~

The Postal Dude

Derek Black Show

From season 1

From season 3

From season 4

From season 5

From season 6

From season 7

From season 8

From season 9

From season 10

Colfred, Arizona

Chandos Hoskyns (British soldier)