Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 6

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) 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa F.C. 7-2 Liverpool F.C.

Aston Villa F.C. 7-2 Liverpool F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Evan0512 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - this is clearly a work-in-progress. A brief google search suggests that this may meet notability guidelines.
  SSSB (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2020–21 Premier League; one of a surprising number of shocking results this year, but not independently notable. GiantSnowman 18:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. It’s a work in progress. I think 9 goals is enough for it to be not just “one of a surprising number of shocking results this year”. Articles have been created for games like this before. I intended to create the article as a draft but couldn’t find how to change it to a draft.
  XfD. [reply
  ]
• Evan0512, you haven't actually stated a reason for your nomination, please clarify....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It requested to be deleted because the article name has both teams and their scores. Evan0512 (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a valid reason for deletion. Suggest speedy close unless the nominator comes up with a valid reason for nomination -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, I gave two. Geschichte (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  WP:CRYSTAL to predict that the match will bear a lasting significance. Probably an unlikely search term as well. Geschichte (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, No indication at all that the match will have sufficient lasting importance to warrant a separate article. Nigej (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These articles can be made to pass GNG, however I don't feel there is importance enough here. I don't see the point of a redirect. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly a historical result, and in fact more notable football matches should have articles. If anybody can explain why every Charity Shield and every MLS All Star Game and every Emirates Cup have separate articles, but actually historic and record breaking/matching matches can't, I'd love to know. ItsKesha (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, this game didn't set any records that I'm aware of, and it's a bit premature after less than three days to categorise it as "historic"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, they're nearly all excessive. The high scoring matches in
    List of Premier League highest scoring games? I suspect not. Nigej (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yes you're both right, the defending champions conceding seven goals is not remotely notable or historic, and definitely broke no records whatsoever. ItsKesha (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have articles like
        List of Premier League highest scoring games partly so that we don't have to have articles like this. The match's notability, historic/record nature can readily be added to that article. Nigej (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • (ec) There have been matches where the reigning champions of English football lost by a larger margin. So no, in that regard at least it didn't break a record....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that one instance 67 years ago means this one isn't notable or historic. And yes, it infact broke the Premier League record. ItsKesha (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think anyone is arguing that point. The question is whether a description in
            List of Premier League highest scoring games, a mention in Premier League records and statistics#Scorelines, the histories of Liverpool/Villa, etc. is sufficient or whether a separate article is required. Nigej (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Including this, 26 games in the history of the Premier League have had nine or more goals, there have been approximately 10600 games in the history of the Premier League. 0.002%. Liverpool's biggest ever Premier League defeat, biggest ever defeat by a reigning Premier League champion, one of the 26 highest scoring games in Premier League history at a factor of 0.002%. Every single "professional" club season has an article. Every single "professional" player is deemed notable, even if they have played one game. Every single MLS All Star game, every single Emirates Cup, every single Premier League Asia trophy, every single Charity Shield, every single player who has played for Rochdale and Doncaster Rovers, every single West Bromwich Albion and Oldham Athletic season. And yet this isn't? Come on. ItsKesha (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would use that argument not to say "this match is notable" but to say "some of those Rochdale and Doncaster Rovers players might not be notable, especially if top-flight players in non-Anglosphere countries - i.e. all countries outside the UK & Ireland where football has been a dominant and central social force - often don't have articles". RobinCarmody (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I wonder if time is also a factor in determining notability here. For instance if Liverpool were to lose 8-1 to Everton in their next match would this game still be seen as notable enough to have its own article? On the other hand if Liverpool go through the season only losing this game, then its claims to notability might be higher. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing which makes it stand out from any of the other shocking results that have happened in the past. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This isn't a highest-scoring PL game, it's not a record win for the league, it just happens to be a big win for a team that was threatened with relegation last season over the reigning champions. I think this is one where we need to wait and see what the coverage is like in the future. Right now, I'm not seeing any reason to keep it. – PeeJay 00:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:This must be added in the history section of both Aston Villa and Arsenal. No need of seperate page Kashmorwiki (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arsenal? – PeeJay 15:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not seeing enough justification here for a stand-alone article on this match. It did not break any records and it is still too soon to say that it will go down as a historic and defining match. For now, let's just keep it in the season summary articles Spiderone 08:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - routine football match which happened to have a shock result, but there is nothing exceptional in that, and it was not record breaking. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:37, 12 October 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. Sources in the article clearly support GNG that go beyond routine match reporting / transfer talk. Fenix down (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Melbourne Victory W-League season

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

)

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

Fails

• Keep - meets GNG which takes priority over whether it is an FPL or not Spiderone 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. GiantSnowman 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There needs to be a wider discussion. There are a number of similar articles in this category. Why is this one been singled out. Djln Djln (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to bundle all the other Melbourne Victory W-League articles in here? Spiderone 20:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to, answer your question, although every W-League individual club season article fails NSEASONS, some of them do look to pass GNG. I am nominating this one on its own because it clearly fails

WP:GNG and doesn't seem to have potential to pass GNG Spiderone 20:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it is best to bundle all the ones deemed not notable and have a wider discussion. As you say, some are more notable than others. It will save a lot of messing about. Djln Djln (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not sure how this fails
  WP:GNG - there are multiple sources from independent reliable sources - Melbourne Leader, Herald Sun, Canberra Times, Sydney Morning Herald, Newcastle Herald, The Women's Game (FTBL - formerly FourFourTwo), Geelong Advertiser, ABC News, Sun-Herald --SuperJew (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Per
  WP:NSEASONS, the article "consists mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players". The guideline doesn't offer fail criteria in terms of competition level, just examples of competitions that will likely garner significant coverage. Hack (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Dougal18 (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the nominator Spiderone has decided the article is notable and should be kept, can the nominater request to withdraw the deletion request and/or an admin speedily close this as a keep? --SuperJew (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, don't think it qualifies for a speedy keep per point 1 of
  WP:CSK. Hack (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks Hack for the clarification. Point seems important to me anyway so not striking it. --SuperJew (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG/NSEASONS – astounded that this was nominated for deletion. Demokra (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep and personally I discount the reflex !votes from the 'usual suspects' at
  WP:LOCALCONSENSUS rather than any proper analysis of the matter at hand. There are also question marks over the conduct and capability of the nominator, which I have raised in more detail in the related discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 11:40, 11 October 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.

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

)

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

Tried redirecting it but there's no evidence that this is a notable fictional character. Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Thomas & Friends Non Notable reoccurring character from the series with no stand alone notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Thomas & Friends because it's a plausible search term Spiderone 18:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom and above --DannyS712 (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable character. If you look into the 10 listed voice actresses, you will realize we only have articles on 3 of them. One, it is stated she did many voices for Thomas and Friends, one she dubbed many voices into French, and one it says nothing but I suspect she was also dubbing. This is one of the most misleading sections ever, it makes it look like this was a major, multi-actress roles, when it was a super minor role always filled by actresses doing multiple roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and above. Not everything related to Thomas and Friends is notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Stork

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

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

Unsuccessful political candidate fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This guy dropped out of the race several months before the general election, so even when we had the absurd rule that major party candidates for US congress were notable, he would not have passed. This is also a very POV-pushing article. It implies that in South Florida having ethnic minorities favors the Democrats, when the largest ethnic minority group in South Florida votes majority Republican. It also tacks on langauge about a court decision 10 years after this guy ran for office that had no direct bearing on any district in the 2000s since it was interpreting a 2010 amendment to the state constitution. This is one of the worst cases of coat-racking I have every implied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wilton Manors FL is not a large enough city to guarantee the "inherent" notability of all of its mayors, unelected candidates in congressional elections don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and this article is referenced nowhere near well enough to claim that he passed
  WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable not-politician. SportingFlyer T·C 20:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ornato

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

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

Copy-and-paste move from

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is too low a position to be default notable and the sourcing does not show notability on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable person, the coverage is all routine or from Twitter. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 01:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shamima K Choudhury

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

)

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

Failed

1. The person's research has no significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
2. The person has not received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
3. The person has not been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or the.
4. The person's academic work has not made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
5. The person has not been held a
   named chair appointment or distinguished professor
   appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
6. The person has not held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
7. The person has not a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
8. The person has not been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
   ^{(keep talking)} 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^{(keep talking)} 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^{(keep talking)} 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^{(keep talking)} 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per
  WP:PROF. She is a fellow of the Bangladesh Physical Society. TJMSmith (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@TJMSmith: do we have a reliable source for that? I didn't see anything about fellows on the Bangladesh Physical Society website. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching for a source, and found this likely primary one [6] where she identifies as a fellow. TJMSmith (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes
  WP:GNG on the strength of the coverage in media, is clearly a nationally significant pioneering woman scientist. It isn't clear what a "selection grade professor" is, but it appears to be, or have been, a high rank in Bangladesh universities - see this cv where a former head of department and professor became "selection grade professor", and this which seems to lament the proposed abolition of it where "senior professors are downgraded from selection grade which means they are going to be deprived of salaries equivalent to top bureaucrats". PamD 11:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

And after having kept, move to the more standard Shamima K. Choudhury with full stop after initial. PamD 11:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is a fellow of the Bangladesh Physical Society. Unfortunately we don't have an article, but we should. It is chronic. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep she hold a top academic post at Dhaka Juju (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:52, 11 October 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. I think we can safely disregard assurances of future sourcing by self-declared paid editors. Sandstein 07:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Noble (musician)

Emma Noble (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Paid article about a musician and DJ who fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of anything that would pass the criteria at
  WP:MUSICBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have talked to the music label that payed me to write this article, and explained how the notability criterias work. They've sent me clips from different radio stations, and I will add them as sources as soon as I have the time. -abbedabb^talk 05:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Consensus was that no appropriate sources exist to sustain this article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin F. Exoo

Calvin F. Exoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found one more review of an authored book [9], and the publisher page for The Pen and the Sword claims that it is reviewed in
  WP:NAUTHOR, but it is getting closer. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep notability both as a professor prominent within his field (cultural hegemony), with published works in this field and as a journalist with nationally prominent publications. Torchist (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Torchist, Care to provide evidence that he is prominent in his field? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I'm not seeing enough reviews for
  WP:TNT is not irrelevant, which helps to bring me to the delete side. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I did several searches and found nothing. His social media presence is virtually nil. I used to blog at
  DailyKos
  under my user name and never heard of him. I found his articles at Salon, but there is nothing about him. 21:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch linguistic influence on naval terms

Dutch linguistic influence on naval terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pure OR, from someone who doesn’t understand the concept of cognate words, by the look of it, or views them as rare. Almost completely inaccurate for that reason. Qwirkle (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's been tagged as unsourced for a decade and appears to be
  SYNTHESIS. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Doesn't appear to be inaccurate though, all I checked are loan words originally from Dutch rather than cognates. However, this list is not long enough to be split apart from List of English words of Dutch origin and I was unable to find sources specifically highlighting naval words often having a Dutch origin, so delete. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The information with references is found at List of English words of Dutch origin for the English words at least. If someone found references this would be a notable list. Dream Focus 14:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Thjarkur. An unnecessary sublist of List of English words of Dutch origin. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 7 October 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) 14:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle Corinthians League

Newcastle Corinthians League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This was an amateur league playing at a low level so doesn't get an automatic notability pass. It needs to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article creator (apparently - I have no recollection of it but then it was 14 years ago!). No indication that this was ever anything more than a very low-level amateur local league, with no real notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local interest only. Nigej (talk) 15:12, 7 October 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.

Tunebite

Tunebite (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, there's a modest amount of borderline reliable tech sites that provide introductions to how to use Tunebite, but between the weak source quality and the superficial nature of the analysis therein, I don't think it meets
  WP:GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 6 October 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kamala

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

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

There are multiple issues with this article. A large part of the introduction is a direct copy/very close paraphrasing of a source, and there is another direct copy of a sentence in the Madhya Pradesh paragraph. Secondly, while the term "Operation Kamala"/"Operation Lotus" is possibly notable, four of the eight references in the article don't even mention it, and two mention it only in passing. There is more than a little

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. 122.171.171.13 (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, until such a time as someone can write an article without original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This term was coined by Main stream Media in India. This is not a socially used term anymore. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after some cleaning as per nominator and let others to expand. 122.171.171.13 (talk) 13:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  IP, I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to notify me and 12 other seemingly unrelated editors of this discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  IP editor, what does "cleaning as per nominator" mean? If I gave the impression in the nomination that I thought that "cleaning" the article could make it salvageable, I must have expressed myself very badly. I don't see how any amount of cleaning could address the fact that notability is not shown and the fact that almost the entire article is a copyright violation that would have to be revision deleted and the original research issues and the POV issues? "Cleaning" would mean

  rewriting the entire thing, but the lack of sources to show any notability would still not be addressed by that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:49, 11 October 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 10:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nakoma Golf Resort

Nakoma Golf Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable golf course. Article is totally referenced on itself and reads like an advertisement. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable as a golf course. The main notability issue seems to be the Frank Lloyd Wright designed clubhouse. The original design was in 1923 for the Nakoma Golf Club/Nakoma Country Club in Madison, Wisconsin, but was built in California in about 2000 and the Nakoma name was reused. Seems to be missing from List of Frank Lloyd Wright works#Posthumous constructions. See also: King Kamehameha Golf Course Clubhouse which focuses on the clubhouse, not the golf course. Confusingly the article is called "Nakoma Golf Resort" but the resort seems to be called "Nakoma Resort". I have added a note about this AfD to Talk:Frank Lloyd Wright. Nigej (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Might be notable, but needs a good
  stick of dynamite under it first, with a new article written from scratch using proper sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:08, 14 October 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 10:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Hills of Hayward Golf Course

Mission Hills of Hayward Golf Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost a pitch and putt course, 1720 yards off the back tees for the 9 hole. Purely local interest. Well below the notability standard required as a golf course. Nigej (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to Hayward, California#Sports. Small, run-of-the-mill golf facility. No coverage outside the usual indiscriminate listings. Redirect could be useful. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I appreciate Wjemather's argument, but I can't see anyone realistically typing this title into the search box. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Injustice Gang

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, major notable element in DC comics, plenty covered. IQNQ (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI[reply]

• Delete - Contrary to the assertion above, there is no proof this is a significant element in DC comics (and even if it was, that is not enough for our notability guidelines), and there is no evidence it has received any coverage. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Topic lacks the real world sources needed to sustain itself. TTN (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to sources that exist in the real world from mainstream comics to television to video games and journalism that covers their appearances in the media. --Moscowdreams (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock account[reply]
• Delete Very minor group with only a few appearances; far more minor than the other villain groups up for deletion now. The versions listed in the other media section really aren't the injustice gang, more like versions of the injustice league or other entities. And references are not enough to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a substantial group in the universe, won't be missed even if deleted, lack of sources and updates wouldn't get it anywhere. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:09, 11 October 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Injustice League

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -
  all plot information. TTN (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*Keep, major notable element in DC comics, plenty covered. IQNQ (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI[reply]

• • Ping User:Sandstein&User:RoySmith: can anyone strike out votes of blocked editors? IQNQ above just got indeffed followed an SPI but their votes are not struck. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Piotrus, Feel free to strike, citing the SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The current article is comprised entirely of primary sourced plot summaries, and should not be kept as is. Searching for additional sources turns up surprisingly little - there are plenty of plot summaries that mention them, but no actual in-depth coverage or analysis that would allow this to pass the
  WP:GNG. If someone can suggest a reasonable Redirect target, I'd be amenable to that, but I have not found anything appropriate myself. Rorshacma (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as entirely primary sourced with only
  WP:NOT. There are no secondary sources to remedy the fundamental incompatibilities with our policies and guidelines. I'm sure the concept comes up in passing in one of the plots of the fiction, and I would not object to a redirect if a suitable target is found. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to List of characters in The Railway Series#Gordon (Number 4). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon the Big Engine

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

)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major recurring character in a variety of media and shows. See The Guardian for some interesting political commentary. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:NOTPLOT. Not sure on the reliability of opinion pieces, but the above article hardly seems worthy of inclusion in the article regardless. It say very little about the actual character, and I doubt "Random Journalist compared the character to a British Prime Minister" is anything anyone would ever deem worthy of connecting to this character. TTN (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete when your character is so minor the actor who voices it also does 2 other roles, I do not think we have a case for notability. Maybe I am focusing on one film too much, but the sourcing does not come to the level of the multiple secondary sources giving indepth coverage that we need to show notability. Just because a character has lots of apparence in primary sources (the works themselves) does not make them notable. We need secondary coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - by the way, this is not a minor character, it is one of the main characters in one of the most significant children's franchises in both the United Kingdom and the United States. That said, having asked an expert to check sources and having done a BEFORE search myself, surprisingly there is very little in the way of independent, reliable sources that discuss this character in-depth. Therefore when everything that fails
  WP:IS is removed (the fancruft) you have a little bit of information, all of which could and should be included in the main article. There's no notability outside of the series (i.e. several of tourist excursion rails run a "Thomas" train, but I've never seen a "Gordon" train promoted.) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to The Railway Series. As 78.26 states, Gordon was one of the main characters. Without wishing to sound like an old git, when I got read these stories as a small child, it was before the TV series had appeared that made Thomas the central character and sidelined everyone else - before that, in the books, the characters got equal treatment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Railway Series: No direct and indepth SIGCOV from RS. Being "famous" does not mean it is notable, in this case we have a fancruft + OR.   // Timothy :: talk  20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above, but List of characters in The Railway Series#Gordon (Number 4) is a more specific target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some Google Scholar results. - Scarpy (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GOOGLEHITS which generally yields 99% of mentions in passing and other bad hits is not a strong argument. Which sources are reliable and discuss this character in-depth? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starhaven

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources that aren't in-universe. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable fictional location. The current article is plot-only information with no secondary sources. Searching for additional sources turns up a few results, but all of them are brief, and are also in terms of plot summary only - there are a couple little blurbs about it being mentioned on the Supergirl show, and a couple of books that mention it only as the homeworld of Dawnstar, with no further coverage of the location itself. Rorshacma (talk) 15:23, 6 October 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.

Iconic Tower (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 sources or links. Only a 'vision' building so not that notable Robynthehode (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Legacy Tower (Purbachal, Dhaka) - There were some sourced content before the article was redirected to Legacy tower. Apparently, the project "Iconic Tower" has been replace by "Legacy Tower" with some changes in the design. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a "History/Development"(?) section of Legacy Tower (Purbachal, Dhaka) with information from the version prior to redirect as this information is of benefit to that article. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Legacy Tower (Purbachal, Dhaka) per Kmzayeem. Coolabahapple has a good idea for a section for it.   // Timothy :: talk  01:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phase One Network

Phase One Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no indication of meeting

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I tagged this for notability and lack of references in 2016 and these remain in place. It was deleted a week ago after a Prod by another user but has now been restored on request from a new user who appears to be from the company. Regarding the weblinks that the user supplied in their Restore request on
  notability. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per AllyD's rationale. The article is a stub that is sourced almost completely by primary sources only. No third-party coverage from independent RS to indicate notability. Fails
  TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:03, 6 October 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 10:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Renae

Amber Renae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced. No independent, reliable secondary sources referenced (as either inline refs or external links); none found following WP:BEFORE. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. WP:REFUNDed after WP:PROD deletion.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an undersourced article on a fashion model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a single one of the external links (the nearest there is in the article to references) is substantial coverage in an independent reliable source, and most of them are neither substantial coverage nor independent reliable sources. My searches for better sources failed to turn up anything of any use whatever. It is perfectly clear that this person does not come within a thousand miles of Wikipedia's notability standards. (In addition, virtually all of the content of the article is not mentioned at all in any of the externally linked sources, so if the article were kept it would have to be reduced to a stub with almost no information in it.) JBW (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: the word Model has been removed as it has nothing to do with this biography

• Keep The person in question is currently appearing on a US Television Series, Dream Life https://www.fyi.tv/shows/dream-life, on top tier network FYI

Also currently airing on Apple TV: https://tv.apple.com/us/show/dream-life/umc.cmc.61pxq42j34ok8jblddfdgo7i7

and on Hulu: https://tvgrapevine.com/2020/08/dream-life-now-streaming-and-airing/

https://www.ontvtonight.com/guide/watch/tv-show/SH035637830000/dream-life.html https://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/dream-life/episode-1-season-1/city-of-angels/1461902/

The show also stars A-list celebrities such as Caitlyn Jenner </ref>https://theblast.com/c/serena-dc-reality-show-dream-life-hot-photos-stuns-fyi-hulu-pictures-positive-tv-show</ref> </ref>https://perezhilton.com/dream-life-reality-tv-show-serena-dc-australia/</ref>

Previously she has starred in Project Runway (Global TV Series)

</ref>https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/amber-renae-from-project-runway-australia-arrives-for-the-news-photo/96432535?adppopup=true</ref> </ref>https://www.newswire.com/amberrenae-com-the-new-website/62502</ref> </ref>http://www.ragtrader.com.au/archive/project-take-off</ref> </ref>https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/marriage/former-reality-tv-star-engaged-by-getting-down-on-one-knee-and-proposing-to-herself/news-story/ddb98b61f46c5cd53f1b3bf6e84c9975</ref> </ref>https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/sydney-confidential/image-gallery/6ea8b05de173a99ed0b7a2ace67b2c6b?sv=9ec1ea3fdf92ab446a788515a5145084</ref>

And has been the host of International Network Fashion TV</ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ishHbi8PK9Y</ref> interviewing A-list Australian Celebrities and Designers including Melissa George and Lara Worthington:

</ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIKvX9tW3SQ</ref> </ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5nHhxQAMD4</ref> </ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD5mlSOuPGQ</ref> </ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Xb3L5MgrE</ref> </ref>https://au.news.yahoo.com/i-blog-pip-christmass-i-br-aurelio-costarella-lights-up-festival-10302178.html</ref> </ref>https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/news-photo/amber-renae-attends-the-swarovski-show-during-mercedes-benz-news-photo/483495525?adppopup=true</ref>

I will find additional sources that meet the guidelines.

You can view her IMDB profile verifying the above: </ref>https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3576462/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1</ref>

And is mentioned as being Notable by other Wikipedia pages here:

</ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Queensland_people</ref>

</ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fashion_designers</ref>

</ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Runway_Australia_(season_2)</ref> Arisonwiki2 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See

talk 22:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I have added some new references and removed promotional information. The page now looks balanced and meet
  WP:ENT. Brett (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: There is an active editor whose account is named "Brett", but the above comment was not added by that account; it was added anonymously by an editor using the IP address 112.79.64.8, which has made no edits not related to this discussion. JBW (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Ragtrader[10], which is borderline, none of these are reliable sources. With the exception of the non-reliable Russian language site, toplichnosti.com[11], none of these have significant coverage. -

talk 22:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• The article has now been edited by someone who knows how to format references, rather than just presenting them as external links, but the references provided are no better than they were when I commented above: not a single one of them is substantial coverage in an independent reliable source, and most of them are neither substantial coverage nor independent reliable sources. As for the long list of links above, even a glance at the list, without following the links, shows that many of them are YouTube, Wikipedia, newswire (a press release site), gettyimages (which sells photographs, and does not give substantial information about anything or anyone), and other types of sites which are of no value at all in establishing notability, and a closer look shows that none of them are in fact suitable. I even found that some of the linked pages don't mention Amber Renae at all.
  Bombarding the discussion with dozens of links none of which shows notability does not add up to showing notability. Statements such as "The show also stars A-list celebrities such as..." shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the whole concept of notability: thousands of nonentities have appeared in the same film, play, show, or event as highly notable people, and that does not make them notable. JBW (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - If the best hit I can find on a Google News search is a trivial passing mention in perezhilton.com, we should not have an article per
  WP:BLPSOURCES. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhit Sharma (Technology journalist)

Shobhit Sharma (Technology journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Despite the article asserting he is "the global champion", he does not pass

• This is spam and unsurprisingly IPsocking has started. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete How many times must me we do this?. This is hoaxspam. Praxidicae (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a not-yet-notable 20-year-old writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Cover Corp.

GMA Cover Corp. (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 consist entirely of insignificant mentions and non-independent, unreliable, or primary sources. I was unable to find any qualifying sources to establish notability with Google, and I suspect that this company fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Goszei. Additionally, the article has not been actively edited since 2014, when it was the subject of slash and burn by an IP. It has also had maintenance tags since 2012. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 6 October 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.

Alina Padikkal

Alina Padikkal (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 satisfy

]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and also salt the mainspace title. Currently there are three draft pieces for this subject.
  talk) 05:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — I totally agree with Robert McClenon, I too do not believe GNG or NACTOR is satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep— (The Subject is most notable in south india, have made reliable references to prove the notability and the coverage of the subject..No reviewer is ready to spend some time on checking the references.we have been trying to create this article since 2018,why cant the reviewer show some patience for checking the reliability of the Subject.....It shouldnt be deleted . THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE APPROVED...KINDLY GO THROUGH THE REFERENCES)1 https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/anchor-actor-alina-padikkal-on-her-journey/article19263632.ece 2 https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/mollywood/121016/miniscreen-tomboy-alina-padikkal.html 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If1WUkmLFuY&list=PLuIcaZEwxqnJX1HdxuRAx4HjjVbgGOjAi&index=60 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrR8F7YiIOg 5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3xJUn5EjfI 2.https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/mollywood/121016/miniscreen-tomboy-alina-padikkal.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kensuriya (talk • contribs) 07:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC) — Kensuriya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - an obviously padded-out CV of a very minor TV personality. She only seems to have been the subject of paid-for journalism. I'm also concerned that the filmography section of this article is unsourced (which seems to be the norm for articles about South-Indian film-industry personnel). This is a massive
  WP:BLP failure that we ought to correct. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Approve kindly go through given sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJMhonest 2020 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Please use some time to search Alina padikkal in google. DONT TAKE PREJUDICE decision... She is well known personality... Check the references — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJMhonest 2020 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

• Please be very careful when making allegations of prejudice. See DONT TAKE PREJUDICE decision.... You may not make comments like this. They are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. In addition, your arguments must be based upon policy. Fiddle Faddle 10:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt Sources are not useful in verifying any notability save that the lady exists and has been interviewed and is in some videos. Al references are either passing mentions or primary sources. Fails
  WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note that the prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alina Padikkal was blanked by JJMhonest 2020. I have reinstated it and warned them on their talk page. This might be a simple speedy deletion as re-created material following a deletion discussion, though I do not have admin goggles to see the old version Fiddle Faddle 11:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dissaapointedsir please find some time read the article references... It has all sources of notability.. The Hindu and deccanchronicle are the top most newspaper... She is an anchor since childhood...and done lots of television programs recently participated in big boss Check https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/anchor-actor-alina-padikkal-on-her-journey/article19263632.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsamjohn (talk • contribs) 11:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC) — Kevinsamjohn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note i read the entire article the creater refered all the sources of the subject popularity(both primary and secondary sources)This article is relevant,it should be approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsamjohn (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC) — Kevinsamjohn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• DeleteNot a notable individual, the possible socking and the fact that it was re-created shows to me that someone has an reason (read self promotion) to create it. VViking_TalkEdits 13:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only source that doesn't look like paid promotion is the short blurb in TimesofIndia; not seeing enough independent coverage for
  WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note Socks have been blocked and struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Albinjose636. This page is currently eligible for G5 (since the sockmaster was blocked when this page was created), but I'd rather let the AfD run its course. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. No evidence of notability, and clearly some COI editing. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per all of the above Spiderone 16:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt No significant coverage. What a farce. Get the salt machine out. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per above. Orientls (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the AfD banner was removed by Honeyintruder888. I have replaced it and warned them for the behaviour Fiddle Faddle 20:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to List of people from Mysore. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities from Mysore

Celebrities from Mysore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Merge into already existing article List of people from Mysore and then delete. Shyamsunder (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shyamsunder (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of people from Mysore per nominator. I wouldn't even bother merging. This article under this discussion is essentially the same thing but with far less context and sources. Ajf773 (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Ajf773; nothing of value worth merging Spiderone 16:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:56, 6 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niue Hotel

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

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

The article does not meet

• Keep. I added some content, mostly from book snippets. It is clear from what can be seen in those snippets that the hotel has been discussed in some depth, partly as a government-owned white elephant, partly as the main social center for the island's elite. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article as expanded clearly shows significant coverage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the most notable buildings in the history of Niue.
  Encyclopædius 16:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, appears to have been a major employer in the Niue, and the proposed privatization of the company was part of the national debate at the time. --Soman (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeo - famous white elephant --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 7 October 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.

Holiday Inn Sunspree Resorts (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 subject does not meet notability for a standalone article. There is no direct or indepth SIGCOV. The material is either unsourced or is not significant enough to be merged into Holiday Inn. Redirects are cheap, but I think it's an unlikely search term.   // Timothy :: talk  04:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative keep or possibly merge if someone puts together a list of other holiday inn extension brands for the main HI article. I haven't looked extensively, but there appears to be reasonable coverage of this initiative by HI.[12] Based on what I have found so far, I expect that significant coverage exists. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I looked more and don't think there is sufficient coverage. This is also just the former name for a brand that is already discussed in the Holiday Inn article (now called Holiday Inn Resort). I added a note about the former name to the main Holiday Inn article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 13 October 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.

Holiday Inn Garden Court (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 subject does not meet notability for a standalone article. There is no direct or indepth SIGCOV. The material is either unsourced or is not significant enough to be merged into Holiday Inn. Redirects are cheap, but I think it's an unlikely search term.   // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect This is already covered in the Holiday Inn article to a certain extent, and it could be bulked up to include several sentences. (Holiday Inn article also conflicts with this one so we should figure out what is correct...) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't merge. It's not notable on its own merits and unique hotels don't need to be listed in such detail on the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually upon closer inspection, it's already mentioned in the parent article. So a Redirect is more sufficient here. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]