Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 October	8 October >

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 merge to Gordon Rausser. Consensus is to do a partial merge of only the notable awards back to the main article on Rausser. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 05:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and honors received by Gordon Rausser

)

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

Attempt to bypass draft space with promotional overcoverage. It was previously contributed, and I moved it to draft as Draft:List of awards and honors received by Gordon Rausser with the comment "Overextensive list. The major awards belong in the article on him/. The minor ones don't belong in WP at all. The ones from his own university don't belong in WP at all This seems to be a promotional attempt to give the same overextended treatment we give performers." Perhaps I should just have merged back the ones worth merging and redirected in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional,
WP:UNDUE list of largely non-notable awards. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Partial merge Obviously we shouldn't have a list of awards longer than the subject's biography itself. Wikipedia is not the place to paste in Mr. Rausser's CV (which can be found here) and only a small selection of the most significant awards should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If DDG's only contention that Gordon Rausser's awards are considered promotional and over coverage solely for the reason the recipient works there, this is completely invalid and should not prompt deletion of the page for the following reason:

1. The Citation Award, Builders of Berkeley, and Fellowship awards are not given simply because of an UC Berkeley affiliation, but given to less than five individuals at a given year who have distinguished themselves through their work and experience. It is unclear why DDG believes the "ones from his own university don't belong in WP." This seems to imply Gordon Rausser owns UC Berkeley, when in fact, he is a professor there. If DDG can clarify this with more than a condescending statement, it would be more constructive to provide evidence. Over the course of history, there are thousands of faculty members and supporters of UC Berkeley. Only 100 of these people are named Berkeley Fellows. With respect to the Citation Award, this is given to one person per year for which everyone who is ever been associated with the CNR either as a student, faculty, alumni, or friend, can be selected. The selection committee is totally blind and does not take any favors. The Career Achievement Award is for one faculty or graduate student member for scientific contributions. The selection committee is also totally blind and does not take any favors.

2. DDG does not understand the prestige of receiving this award simply because DDG does not understand the honor process in academia. In other words, DDG does not have any expertise nor the competency to determine which awards are minor. It is worth noting that DDG has attended UC Berkeley and should understand how major these awards are. There might be a conflict of interest due to DDG's affiliation with UC Berkeley's CNR, whether he has a negative intention towards Rausser and CNR. If DDG can pinpoint which awards he considers "minor awards," I will be more than happy to explain why it is not. Furthermore, this is an insult to the UC Berkeley institution as well as to Gordon Rausser. In the future, DDG should provide reasoning and evidence before making such outlandish statements and a request for the deletion of a Wikipedia page with all the necessary sources and citations.

Choielliotjwa (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent most of my life in academia, including some of it in Berkeley. Significant awards are those given by an outside organization for a major body of work. In-house awards are basically an exercise in public relations, and therefore of low significance in general. I agree that perhaps the very highest ones from Berkeley might have some importance. (I'm not about to deny the quality of the university that gave me my own doctorate), but its not the degree of significance that would demonstrate notability. But they are much less significant than awards from major outside professional societies, and Rauscher has enough of them to prove his great importance. Of the awards from Berkeley:

"Builder of Berkeley" is an award for giving them money.
In 2004, Rausser was awarded the Citation Award from UC Berkeley's College of Natural Resources this is not their top level award (he did win their top level award, in addition, so why mention this?)
a member of UC Berkeley's Board of Trustees. -- we don't now include such memberships in any article for anyone; (many articles still have them from our earlier days when we were less careful)
chair of UC Berkeley's Department of Economics and All Economic Programs Evaluation Committee. -- this is academic service, but not an award

But it's not just the awards from Berkeley. Awards for being the best article in a wide subject field are significant.

...

But awards for being the best article in a particular journal in a particular year are relatively trivial.

In 2014, Rausser was awarded the “Best Private Enforcement Academic Article” from the American Antitrust Institute[12][13].

....

Being on the editorial board of a journal is trivial. Being the editor in cheif is significant. Rauscher was indeed editor in chief of a major journal, which is part of what proves him notable ,

but the list also includes ones where he was just one of an editor borard or "an editor". ....

There are three reasons for including minor honors:

There's not enough major -- this doesn't appply here. There are plenty of major distinctions
One is writing a CV -- for an official academic CV in the US the current required practice is to include everything, down to individual lectures and classes. But Wikipedia does not publish CVs/.
One is resorting to puffery, to make someone appear even more important than they are. -- But Rauscher is quite important, and all such a list does is detract from focussing on the really major distinction he has earned. Writing an academic bio and making this error is characteristic of PR people, who are used to being expansive as they can get away with, to people writing or directing the writing of their autobiography, or to newcomers here who copy the promotionalism they see , which we acceptedi n earlier days and are still in the process of removing. What we certainly don't need is more of it!

unfinished--to be continued tomorrow but it's too late in the night to keep working on it now. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gordon Rausser. Why wasn't this just a merge discussion? Notable awards should be listed, others removed. Dream Focus 08:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gordon Rausser. I note this target already includes a paragraph summarising his awards, so it may be that there is nothing to merge if every single thing on this list is deemed insignificant. That is a content decision for editors of the main article though.----Pontificalibus 10:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oddly, the paragraph in the main article left out

"In 1993, Rausser was selected as a fellow at the American Association for the Advancement of Science"

which by our standards -- and most people in the academic world-- is the highest honour of everything in the long list., and most of the ones in the para are described very vaguely: "twenty boards of directors" . Looking a little more broadly at the article, it mentions his honors, but not his science. I notice they're in Draft:List of selected works by Gordon Rausser, where they seem to be listed by broad subject, ignoring whether they're a book (there are 6 of them) , a peer-reviewed journal article, or just a published report--or even an unpublished "position paper" (some of them "confidential") The main article needs complete rewriting. He's an economist, not a natural scientist, but I could do it if no other established volunteer editor does. There seems to be COI, tho I can not determine its nature. There's an interesting version by the curret ed. at [1] DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken DDG’s point of the Builder of Berkeley award and the Board of Trustees award and deleted them from the list. Objectively, it does seem like a promotional award for no merit except a flair of wealth, and to comply with Wikipedia’s guidelines, the Trustee position has also been deleted. I have also changed the College of Natural Resources award to the highest Career Achievement Award.

With the comments from Pontificalibus and DreamFocus, I also propose the awards and honor list be moved to the main article. I assure Pontificalibus that the whole list is not insignificant; on the contrary, the majority if not all, are significant and noteworthy.

However, with the other awards, there is one crucial point: it is not up to DDG to judge whether an award is trivial or minor.

An editorship of an academic journal is not something academia gives away to everyone. The American Antitrust Institute, in which DDG calls their awards “trivial,” is an extremely important non-profit think-tank that is at the forefront of antitrust enforcement for big companies. To call such a prestigious institution is extremely worrying. If this was a “trivial” journal with no impact factors, objectively, this would be minor.

In a comparison, an editor-in-chief is more prestigious than an associate editor. Another comparison shows that an associate editor is more prestigious than a guest editor. Another comparison shows that a guest editor is more prestigious than a writer. Another comparison shows that a writer is more prestigious than a non-writer. RELATIVELY and OBJECTIVELY, an editorship at a renowned academic journal is indeed a honor.

The proposed three reasons DDG states for the justification of minor awards seem somewhat redundant, as DDG rules out two of the reasons and the aforementioned Wikipedia page is not an official CV as it does not include individual lectures or classes. This is not a CV, and this contention seems like an irrelevant red herring to fallaciously strengthen DDG’s point.

As to “completely revising” the main article, the reason simply does not make sense. Because he’s an economist and not a scientist the article has to be revised? What’s the difference between an economist’s Wikipedia page and a scientist’s Wikipedia’s page? The Draft:List of selected works by Gordon Rausser should be disregarded. Why does DDG want to completely revise the main article after it had passed the neutrality guidelines? With a ridiculous contention and irrelevant and even more ridiculous reason, DDG’s COI as well as his past work should be audited and reviewed. Choielliotjwa (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gordon Rausser. Not an independently notable topic. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not merge. See
undue emphasis. The above arguments may be ironically appropriate to illustrate this point, because they are indiscriminate pilings on of English words. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 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)} 22:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cascina Caradonna

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

Fails

WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass
talk) 07:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Does not pass
WP:TOOSOON. She may become more notable with time, but not right now. Pamzeis (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:15, 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 21:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drivill

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

Non-notable company. Fails

WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 21:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-notable and promotional.
talk) 07:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Perhaps
WP:TOOSOON, but regardless at present does seem to fail NCORP. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Fails
WP:NCORP for now.Less Unless (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — Per rationale by
WP:ORGCRIT. Celestina007 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 16:11, 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. ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 05:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cunninghams

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

Article is mostly the work of a member of the band described and sourced entirely to their personal knowledge. Article has been tagged for 12 years with no substantial improvement for

WP:BAND apply. The possibility of mergers or redirects is limited as the most likely targets already redirect to this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which sources did you object to? The album article was redirected earlier this year; the band and/or album are covered by AllMusic, Trouser Press, Tulsa World, Washington City Paper, Musician, Arizona Republic, Billboard, Deseret News. If COI is a problem, just have an album article... Caro7200 (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tulsa World article is a bundle CD review that spends all of four sentences actually talking about the band in question or its music. The Billboard "article" is nothing more than a picture caption that doubles as a signing announcement. The Trouser Press article is another capsule review. the Washington City Paper is just an gig announcement. Please identify (or, better yet, link to) the Musician and Arizona Republic articles. The problem all these have is that they are not

WP:SIGCOV. Even taken together, they demonstrate existence and little else. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The vast majority of album reviews are "capsule" reviews...perhaps your real objection is to the existence of short articles? The previous AfD closed as no consensus, but with a suggestion that the article be rewritten...all of the above sources can be used to craft a short article. Caro7200 (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to tell me what my "real" objection is when I've explicitly spelled it out with references and links to policy. With the sole exception of the Deseret News article, all the sources available are very short and do not demonstrate significant coverage. There is no reason to continue to carry an article, of whatever length, that basically says: "This band from Seattle played post-grunge pop and blew up after one album." Hundreds of other bands could say the same or similar but neither they nor this one have had any real impact. Notability exists as a standard for a reason. Also a correction: the previous AfD closed with the statement that there was a very clear consensus that the article need a rewrite at a minimum. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another correction: I posed a question, I did not try to tell you anything. And these sources could very much be used to construct an article that says something beyond "'This band from Seattle played post-grunge pop and blew up after one album.'" A band or an album is notable if enough coverage exists in independent, reliable sources. Caro7200 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are five reliable sources covering this band in at least a paragraph and combined that passes
WP:GNG. Also the nominator seems to imply that the first AFD was years ago when it was in fact only last March. There is no valid reason at all to delete this article,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is unsalvageable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly unsalvageable considering it is one paragraph long and there are five reliable sources giving it at least a paragraph each, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One scant paragraph here and there hardly constitutes enough "in-depth" sources for the purpose of claiming notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage lacks substance.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 15 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 no consensus.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Ten Ton Chicken

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

Fails

WP:NBAND. I was unable to find any reliable sources that cover this group. W 42 20:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. W 42 20:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found an Allmusic biography page which establishes notability. The rest of the G. results are the usual trash like databases, streaming service links, concert sites and retail sites. I have also found an album review (although I am not convinced of the reliability of this site, it has a rather blog-like feel to me) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the AllMusic bio there is also a staff written album review there. Will look for more sources tomorrow, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: found this list of links to reviews, book source, this, and this, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure we have enough - I will think on this. The Allmusic bio is not an independent reliable source. But two of Atlantic's sources (The book and the State Hornet source) seem reliable and perhaps independent and more than passing mention. Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: Actually, Allmusic is a reliable source when the band has a biography and not just a listing of the trivial facts and a discography. It is also a reliable site when an album has a staff written review (user generated ones does not count). When these things aren't present (the biography page is blank, the album page is just a track listing and maybe some user reviews are there) it isn't reliable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, GhostDestroyer100 re: AllMusic staff bio's, FWIW, there was an AFD nomination a while back where a staff written bio was a cut and paste from the subject's website. They are unabashed in requesting and accepting promotional materials to aid them in maintaining content, and some "staff" (most are freelancers, actually--who work with minimal editorial oversight) are, to put it simply, lazy in sourcing independent references. The site is increasingly inconsistent in pursuit of their stated goal of cataloging and providing information for any and everything in the Rovi database. I think editors should treat each subject on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket "It's an AllMusic staff article so it passes..." ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure the cut and paste wasn't the other way around? Anyway have you any sources for your criticisms of AllMusic or is it just guesswork? Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on what I've seen, this band seems to be too provincial and therefore does not deserve a Wikipedia page. Maqdisi117 (talk) 23:16, 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 no consensus.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yehoshua Sofer

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

Not notable. The article was nominated a year ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yehoshua Sofer, and was kept due to no consensus, but later most of the users who supported to keep the article were found to be socks. P. S. Looking at Abir, his personal martial art style, articles about which were created in many minor wikies with low inclusion standards, it looks like there is a PR activity around Sofer. Wikisaurus (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the sources covering him are reliable. So he is an off-beat character. So what? From the number of write-ups about him, he is notable. See no reason to delete.Geewhiz (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am leaning towards delete. Most of the sources I could find mention him only in passing. For example, he's mentioned once in a list in a two volume encyclopedia on hip-hop and the other references are also quite weak. The only two sources that seem to have some depth are the ones in the Times of Israel and Jerusalem Post. That might meet the most generous interpretation of
WP:GNG. I think I fall just on the other side of the GNG fence from the comment in the first AfD discussion that said "I think he's a total con-man and is generally not-legit, but I do think that he's a GNG-passing con-man." However, I'll admit my feelings are not very strong which is why I haven't voted yet. Papaursa (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it squeaks past BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Barely meets this, but past the line. // Timothy :: talk 13:26, 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 no consensus.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Blue Jupiter

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

Doesn't meet

WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as per nom for not meeting notability standards. Balle010 (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as did find significant coverage here but more is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 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. Sandstein 20:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilievich

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

Per consensus at

WP:Disambiguation pages or WP:Name pages

) for non-surname patronymics.

Per my rationale in that discussion, this article is similar to if

Alexandrovich. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unneeded. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, namecruft per the nominator's reasoning. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It doesn't serve any purpose.Less Unless (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 16:08, 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 20:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ndukwe Onuoha

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

spammy autobio about a non-notable person, only sources are PR types and passing mentions, nothing that indicates actual notability. Praxidicae (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & fails to satisfy any known notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:GNG. There's no significant coverage to indicate notability. Less Unless (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
everybody knows we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I have added two references, one of which provides in-depth coverage, but that article makes it clear that Onuoha invited the journalists to hear his latest album and I don't think the coverage is therefore independent of the subject. As a seasoned PR professional, he knows what he's doing. But the appeal on the article talk page that he is important, and accusing editors of racial prejudice, doesn't help. SPA, COI editor with clear, close links to the subject, certainly UPE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:07, 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 keep. Withdrawn

(non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sylvie Cloutier

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

No clear indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. I think I need to spend a bit more time on notability guidelines for academics. PepperBeast (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NPROF C1. The case isn't quite as clear as it looks at first glance -- the subject's most highly-cited papers have an extremely large number of coauthors, and to further complicate things, there is another scientist of the same name who works in a nearby field. I see several highly-cited papers with the subject as first or last author (in a field where I believe that matters), however, and I think it's enough. FWIW, Mendeley profile [2] is perhaps easier to look at than Google Scholar search results. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Google Scholar shows citation counts of 372, 347, 324, 260, 251, 247, 161, 137, 135, 125, etc., with three of these top ten having her as first author. This is enough for a clear pass of
WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per RW and DE. Nom may wish to consult
WP:NPROF further, as many of their recent noms appear to clear that threshold rather easily. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as
WP:NPROF C1. Besides the impressive top-10 cited works all being over 100 citation, the next page of results also has 100+ citation papers and the 20th paper is as 73.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Clear pass of
WP:NPROF - uncertain why this was even nominated. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. She has won an award which passes
WP:NPROF. Pamzeis (talk) 10:02, 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. Wikipedia doesn't much like political candidates, but it sure does like academics. Sandstein 20:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Bean

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

primary sources (her staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, etc.) rather than notability-making reliable sources. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, since her notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder" -- but being a candidate does not secure inclusion in Wikipedia by itself, and nothing stated in the article earns her special treatment over and above other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. She obviously doesn't pass
WP:PROF despite her assistant-professor rank. An alternative possibility, possibly helpful in preventing this from being an election soapbox, would be to create an article on the book (which has enough reviews to appear independently notable) and redirect this article there pending the outcome of the election. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
- A stub on the book now exists thanks to AleatoryPonderings. See The Politics of Evangelical Identity. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~See The Politics of Evangelical Identity,~~ with thanks to David Eppstein for essentially creating the article already. I have no opinion on Bean's notability at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like we collided on that one. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:PROF based on the citation record of her works (see Google Scholar profile) and the notable book she authored (multiple independent reviews). I've attempted to restructure the article to focus on these points as alluded to by Eppstein above. TJMSmith (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep based on

talk

) 05:37, 8 October 2020 (GMT)

Keep based on
WP:PROF Juju (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep for
WP:NPOL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
WP:SIGCOV. I found coverage in the NY Times, Washington Post, Vox, GBooks, JStor, Stanford and a couple of specialist sites. scope_creep^Talk 10:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article was created to advance her candidacy. Her academic credentials are not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as restructured by
talk) 17:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Meets PROF but more importantly GNG with coverage of the book. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:46, 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 merge to Directorates of the Scottish Government. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy and External Affairs Directorates

)

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

This topic is not notable. The article has not been substantively edited since 2016 and is out of date, and is little more than a list of appointments and post-holders, and fails

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Another article Directorates of the Scottish Government adequately covers the material. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge into iff consensus emerges to merge or delete this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Directorates of the Scottish Government. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Directorates of the Scottish Government - There is not enough for a stand alone article here and I doubt there could ever be, but the merge proposal sounds like a good way forward. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 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. Sandstein 20:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Barone

Rosie Barone (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 real indication of notability, and no sources. PepperBeast (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no evidence of anything approaching notability per
WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I could find much at all to indicate notability. scope_creep^Talk 11:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable collegiate tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even close to meeting GNG Spiderone 11:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 16:12, 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 no consensus.
No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Muhammad Hamza Shafqaat

Muhammad Hamza Shafqaat (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:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a notable personality in Pakistan. I have added some more information about him in the article. Instead of proposing for deletion, adding some information about the subject is useful. The person is a deputy commissioner of Islamabad capital territory of Pakistan. There are several pages of similar biographies like this one of
Steve_House_(police_officer). GreatWikian (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

doesn't compare, articles stand on own merit anyway, but House meets
Queen's Police Medal, and was the first Chief constable of Sotland. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 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.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Jodi O'Donnell-Ames

Jodi O'Donnell-Ames (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 of this article fails
WP:GNG. Article contains sources that are primary, unreliable, mention the subject briefly and no wide coverage. Google search of her does not show in-depth significant coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This runs afould of the guidlines that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search reveals nine pages of articles and discussion about O'Donnell-Ames and her work. The article has no intention of serving a function like that of LinkedIn—the accomplishment of being the first person in the U.S. to establish a non-profit for the children of ALS patients is significant, and no work opportunities are being sought out. Her work is referenced in the article
WP:GNG. User:Newjersey20 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

comment: the above editor is the creator of the article.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment the above editor is the nominator of the AfD for this article. That's about how much relevance that statement makes. Argue policy not prejudice.--
talk) 20:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: there's simply nothing here that would pass
WP:ANYBIO. I was initially going to suggest redirecting to Hope Loves Company, but having taken a look at that page, I've started an AfD discussion for it. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - She is an author who has written published works. An advocate for those suffering with ALS. She has been the topic of many primary and secondary reliable sources including newspapers and other media outlets. She has won awards for her contributions to the ALS community. A simple Google search reveals just how impactful she has been on a segment of our world population suffering from this terrible disease. She soars above the line called
talk) 20:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment difficult to lend any support whatsoever to keeping this article. It has the prototypical qualities of wikipedia-as-venue-for-PR-fluff, such as the throw-away single-purpose account making just exactly enough edits to lauch a perfectly formed article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Newjersey20 - and the PR photo claimed as "own work" by the article author - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jodi_O%27Donnell-Ames_2020.jpg (which is either an indicator of COI, or a lie, or both) - and the hyper-detailed hagiographic narrative knit from sparse PR fluff sources. Google isn't exactly falling over itself to disgorge reliable sources meeting GNG. Google news has a few pages of miserable PR fluff. My view is that the best interests of wikipedia will be met by deleting articles such as this. We owe no favours to sub-border-line-notable individuals who seek to use wikipedia for their ends, rather than contributing to wikipedia for its ends. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love ya
talk) 13:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or merge per
WP:PROMO. TJMSmith (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - While this person's work is quite admirable, there are two problems: notability and COI. The sourcing is weak: 1. local college newsletter (trivial); 2. Primary (interview); 3. local Fox channel human interest story; 4. primary (interview) on Authority Magazine's website it states "Where to send a pitch" and..."Are you an expert in your field who has information to share with the public? Authority Mag has a paid program called "Thought Leader Incubator" in other words this seems like pay-to-play; 5. People Mag: OK; 6. Mercer Me: self-disclosed "hyper-local news outlet" (trivial); 7. & 8. Alumni award and newsletter (trivial). That just leaves Fox and People (not the most reliable sources IMO, but they pass). Does not meet WP:GNG at this time. Re: COI...it has all the marks of a PR firm's creation: promotional tone (now tempered); padding references with trivia and primary sources; WP:SPA editor (with 41 total edits) has created two articles...this one and the one for her company both perfectly formed; the smoking gun is the studio-shot PR photo by the article creator, who by the way also claims that her company's logo is their "own work" on O'Donnell-Ames' Hope Loves Company article. Quite a bit of evidence this is UPE/COI. Netherzone (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 17:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not finding any book reviews. She definitely does not pass WP:NAUTHOR, which is why I did not mention it above. She has written two books published by 1. Open Door Publishing - from their website: "Coaching: $150 per one-hour session or $400 for three one-hour sessions." and "In addition we offer consulting services, at $100 per hour, for do-it-yourself author who just needs a little advice on the intricacies of publishing." 2. The other book publisher is "People Tested Media" the motto on their website is "Our Readers are not Dummies!" and "We’re not a self publishing mill! We don’t provide publishing consulting services! You won’t end up with a garage full of books or the need to view a lot of self help videos that actually take time away from your ability to tell your tale!" This does not instill a lot of confidence in the presses. Netherzone (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post links here to the "independent book reviews" that you have refered to above? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 19:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, since everyone wants to throw around their "supposed" expert opinion as fact, has anyone asked the editor if they are a paid contributor? I mean, are we just going to consider the "good faith" only applies when it's in our personal favor or goes along with our own personal opinions?--
talk) 17:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as promotional and lacking in depth coverage.
Stuartyeates (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment-Since my fellow Wikipedians are so afraid to do any research to back of their claims here I wanted to inform you all that I have asked the creator if they have any affiliation with Jodi O'Donnell-Ames or Hope Loves Company on the user talk page. Subject to the answers, I will ask about the pictures on Wikimedia Commons. This is the type of investigative work that should be thoroughly checked prior to making assertions that are unsupported by verifiable proof.
talk) 20:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment to any potential closer of this AfD. I ask that seven additional days be allowed, after whatever decision is made, for the original creator of the article to answer my requests for comment on their talk page. I will endeavor to determine whether this person is a paid contributor or there is a COI issue regarding this article. IF that is the case then I move to have the article on Jodi and the article on the organization be draftified and allow myself and other editors to bring it to a place where it can be merged into one article for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The organization is most assuredly notable and there is precedent for inclusion. See
talk) 19:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater (talk) 16:10, 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.
Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The Suitcase Junket

The Suitcase Junket (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 appear to be a notable performer who meets
WP:BAND standards. Creator is a disclosed paid editor and the article’s tone seems to reflect a promotional nature. only (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. only (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotional tone aside, non-trivial coverage in the Boston Globe and with NPR meet the 2 significant sources criteria, plus a release on a decent independent label. There is some lesser stuff, too, but it's mostly run of he mill/interview/and blog type stuff. This one barely clears the notability bar, but I think it's okay. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The Boston Globe article appears to be predominantly an interview, which is precluded under
WP:MUSICBIO - except for ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. When this is discounted, there's not enough coverage to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dom Kaos - without the Boston Globe interview the coverage is too minimal to hit NMUSIC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 15 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 20:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bindu Babu

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

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

Non notable Quantum Based Transformational Life Coach, Past Life Regression Therapist & Intuitive Reiki healer. Yeesh. Little media coverage. Article is basically promotional. PepperBeast (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.
WP:ANYBIO. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I first came across this article when it was a draft. It was moved into mainspace, bypassing the AfC process, and I had immediate concerns about notability and promotion, but it took me some time to work through the references, debunk the claims that Babu makes about herself, and tag the issues or edit the content, such as to make it clear that she's been nominated for those awards rather than won them. It became clear that the awards she has been nominated for are the sort that you can nominate yourself for, if you don't mind paying the ticket prices for a table at the award ceremony. The Forbes Council also takes self-nominations and clearly doesn't fact check. Early versions of her standard blurb for example say she had spoken at Harvard, whereas in reality she had spoken at a conference that took place at an event facility on the Harvard campus. The 'PhD' she has comes from a 'university' with no physical campus and where exams in degree courses are multi-choice, computer based, taken at home and with the ability to re-sit the following day if you fail. Her blurb included that she had qualified with the World Health Organisation in COVID response planning, but all it took was three hours of self-paced training and an online test which hundreds of thousands of people had completed. All in all this person has tried hard to market themselves and I am sure this Wikipedia article is part of that effort. You may be wondering why I haven't already nominated the article for deletion. I think it serves readers to read about the reality of Babu's claims, in a case of
WP:LUC. Once deleted, it will live on forever in Deletionpedia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I cannot better
WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 09:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The first 4 references are her own sites. scope_creep^Talk 11:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI'm a the creator of Bindu Babu's article. I wrote her article when I'm not fully well understand with notability, it was when I the draft moved to main space, I realized that most the references are independent secondary reliable source. And by virtue that some editors are accusing me for been paid for the article as I know I have no connection with her.

I'm hundred percent willing for deletion of this page because she is not notable to be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbas Kwarbai (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that substantial edits have been made by editors other than the creating editor. This AfD must run its course, please rather than opting for speedy deletion at the request of the creator. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 16:17, 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 merge to Haken (band). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jennings (singer)

Ross Jennings (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:GNG as an individual, by virtue of having received his own media coverage independently of the band as a whole. But the sources here are not reliable or notability-building ones: four are his and the band's own self-published web presence on their own website and social networking or music sales platforms, two are directory entries in databases, and the two that are marginally acceptable still just briefly namecheck Ross Jennings' existence in the process of being primarily about other people. All of which means that exactly zero of the footnotes are reliable or notability-making sources about Ross Jennings, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haken (band): a Google search shows that he's generally described as "Haken's Ross Jennings" or similar, but there doesn't appear to be any coverage of him that's independent of the band. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haken (band) - That band has achieved notability, but this singer's activities outside the band have not, and his solo article is dependent on sources that are actually about Haken. His solo article can be revived in the future if that aspect of his career takes off. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 19:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Haken. He may become notable enough one day to be worth a separate article, but not yet. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 00:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Haken (band). This didn't really need to come to AfD. --Michig (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 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 keep. SNOW.
(non-admin closure) Nightfury 07:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Babylon Graundfote

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

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

Rather obscure 15th century Member of Parliament. Article relies on a single source, and I couldn't locate any other mentions of this person. PepperBeast (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Member of the House of Commons. Passes NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is it the nom's contention that this article is not verifiable? It's based on a biographical dictionary published by
Her Majesty's Stationery Office, so I'd say it's reliable. I can't think of any other reason to delete. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Enos and Aleatory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of national legislatures/parliaments are default notable, and the one source is reliable enough to verrify that Graundfote existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes NPOL. I've tracked down the single source this article is based on using Google - it's a book from 1936 which cites other reliable sources in the research (though those sources look primary, we'd be worse off as an encyclopaedia if we deleted this one.) SportingFlyer T·C 09:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Elected Members of legislatures/parliaments are automatic pass
WP:GNG-- Padavalam🌂 ► 08:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Elected member of a national parliament. Lefcentreright ^{Talk | Contribs | Global} 18:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shameless
WP:PILEON Lightburst (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, per inclusion in The History of Parliament, Biographies of the Members of the Commons House, 1439–1509. Right cite (talk) 18:32, 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 speedy keep. Per
(non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 17:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Birgitte Bak-Jensen

Birgitte Bak-Jensen (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 clear indication of notability. Couldn't find any significant media coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. I think I need to spend a bit more time on notability guidelines for academics. PepperBeast (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Media coverage is not usually a helpful metric for academic notability. Her Google Scholar profile shows 20 publications with over 100 citations each. Only one has her name in first position but several others list her last, usually also a meaningful position. I think this is enough for
WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per David Eppstein. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NPROF C1, via plenty of highly-cited papers. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Passes
talk) 21:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as PROF-C1, h-index of 39.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear pass of
WP:NPROF - uncertain why this was even nominated. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Same conclusion as everybody else. My tuppence worth. scope_creep^Talk 11:06, 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Bain

Jodie Bain (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 correctly removed because it had already had a PROD before. My concern still remains. Fails
WP:GNG also. Spiderone 16:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 16:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. the external link says almost nothing. Nigej (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice (See following Comment) - No one has been able to show me where Wikipedia ever said "fully" professional anything. I am still waiting and I think I will be waiting forever because it isn't there. The use of the word "fully" professional is used by deletionist to advocate the removal of hundreds of articles based on their personal opinion, and op-ed style written essays, not wikipedia policy. I have no issue and never will have issue with debating and discussing policy. This player plays/played in the top professional women's league in Australia. That is supported by wikipedia policy as the exact wording of the policy says "top professional". A written essay can not supercede the primary or secondary wikipedia guidelines. She meets WP:NFOOTY, as a professional player semi or otherwise, but does not meet WP:GNG as no reliable sources were given. For that I say delete until reliable sources are brought forward.
talk) 18:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

NFOOTY is an essay to be used as a guide only. I'm perfectly happy with most of the articles on Australian female footballers, even though a lot of them technically fail NFOOTY. There are, however, a handful that are completely unsourced and a BEFORE search has turned up next to nothing on those occasions. Those have been given a PROD in the same way that we often propose to delete articles on many male footballers that may scrape through the NFOOTY criteria by the skin of their teeth but comprehensively fail GNG. The idea of NFOOTY is, I think, fully professional leagues tend to get more coverage than semi-pro ones so there is a presumption that players that have played in them should have GNG coverage but, of course, this is often not the case and there are many players that fail NFOOTY that meet GNG. Spiderone 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment of this particular case and recant my statement that she passes NFOOTY. She does not. I also agree that NFOOTY can be used as reference but I find it is used in these AfD's almost as policy to initiate deletions and complete decisions are made on the basis of that claim alone. I have seen it. To me this is fallacy to take an essay and present it as a definitive arguing point rather than a point of reference. The fact it fails WP:NFOOTY is of no relevance to policy than any other opinion or essay out there on Wikipedia. The fact it fails WP:GNG is the determining factor in this case and all others.
talk) 19:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:FPL, which is a referenced list of what leagues are fully professional). Number 5 7 11:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
As I've clearly demonstrated in my links above, it is not an essay, it is a notability guideline. If you cannot understand this basic concept, you should not be participating in AfDs. Number 5 7 12:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not going to do a
WP:BEFORE. If they are relying on nfooty to make the grade, then i'm not wasting my time. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing
WP:GNG. Had a look at the Age/Sydney Morning Herald archvie, NewsBank, ProQuest and EBSCOhost and there's nothing meaningful beyond a couple of name-checks in match reports. Hack (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and has not played in professional matches. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 21:17, 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. Sandstein 17:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Gordon and Franc Cano

Steven Gordon and Franc Cano (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 notability. Inexpiable (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability for criminals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 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 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parag Shirnamé

Parag Shirnamé (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 that his position as a commissioner was notable, and I see no evidence he meets any other criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman and government functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough coverage for notability.--Hippeus (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an internet search doesn't yield anything substantial Spiderone 22:09, 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. Sandstein 17:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sperry

Paul Sperry (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 is no RS coverage of this person. He fails notability and there is virtually nothing from secondary sources on which to build a WP article.
talk) 15:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if he is notable enough.....but he has written a number of OP-EDs that have appeared in RS. These were in the article until today [4]Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a
WP:FRINGEBLP without the coverage we require for biographies of that sort. His biggest claim to fame is being retweeted by Trump, who retweets a lot of people. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:03, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Williams (Mass Effect)

Ashley Williams (Mass Effect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another non-notable fictional character, with no in-depth coverage outside of fan magazines. No real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's definitely RSes discussing the character and not just "fan magazines" here, though there are also some questionable sources used (I see one Forbes contributor, for example). The character had created some controversial discussions so I don't see any issue in keeping it but merging to the list of ME characters after trimming out some of the unnecessary elements could be possible. --Masem (t) 15:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: It was already part of the original List of Characters. After consideration, I split the article out of the list because to provide coverage of the discussions generated about characters with politically incorrect or religious views will require significant expansion on the prose which may put undue weight on the entire list in itself. Also, the character was featured very prominently in marketing material and demo footage for the series, so while it does not necessarily establish notability, I am under the impression that it is one factor to consider, for e.g.
WP:CCOS. Re: Forbes, if you inspect the article, you'll find that Alex Knapp was actually a staff writer when he wrote the opinion piece, not a contributor.Haleth (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: PC Gamer, GamesRadar, Gamasutra, VentureBeat, just to name a few, are not fan magazines for the Mass Effect series. I believe it is ridiculous to suggest that an article examining religious issues in video games published by the Institute of Religious Studies under the University of Heidelberg and a published book discussing video game characters fit anywhere near an objective definition of a "fan magazine". I don't believe
WP:VG/S which provide significant coverage that are independent of the subject? Haleth (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
A few more sources I've located and intend to extract and include in the article.
https://www.newstatesman.com/mass-effect-andromeda-i-will-play-as-a-woman

https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/04/was-this-mass-effect-3-scene-deleted-because-it-touches-on-religion

https://nerdist.com/article/gaming-industry-black-activism/ (commentary on black actress playing white character)

https://www.cbr.com/video-game-voice-actors-look-like/ (further commentary on voice actress' ethnicity)

https://www.thegamesmachine.it/editoriali/137828/ashley-williams-donne-forti-editoriale/ (in Italian)

https://www.destructoid.com/stories/you-can-always-get-what-you-want-mass-effect-and-wish-fulfillment-55764.phtml (by
Anthony Burch
, re. Ashley's involvement in Wrex's potential shooting)

https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/mass-effect/mass-effect-arrival-and-social-responsibility-in-s/ (further commentary on Wrex's shooting and comparison made to police violence against ethnic minorities in US)

http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/13620 (Research report for University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg)

https://www.academia.edu/42997152/Gaming_Politics_Gender_and_Sexuality_on_Earth_and_Beyond (Section of phD thesis awarded by King's College London)

Weak keep or merge this character did provoke some amount of conversation, including reliable third party sources. I could see someone debating the level of detail of that coverage and if it warrants a full article like this. Her significance should be covered somewhere even if it is small. Jontesta (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to easily pass GNG. Even if certain sources are not reliable (and then should be removed) there still appears to be plenty to keep the article. Rhino131 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "In praise - and defence - of Ashley Williams, the most contentious character in BioWare’s sci-fi epic" appeared in Xbox: The Official Magazine and republished on Gamesradar; this is a full-length article discussing the character directly and in detail. "The Right Choice In Mass Effect: Kaidan Alenko" from Venturebeat discusses the character directly and in detail, comparing her role in the story to another character. Some of the other sources are listicles, which I think don't add much to notability, but the Gamesradar/XBox Magazine and VentureBeat sources are legit. The nominator's casual nomination rationale claims that there's "no in-depth coverage outside of fan magazines", but doesn't explain why these sources fail SIGCOV. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, high quality article, good research and writing was done here. Great job overall to the Wikipedia contributors to this article page. Right cite (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. The reception section seems ok, and I wonder why the nominator is ignoring it and not discussing it in any detail? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lazy nomination; either nominator didn't actually read the article or its sources, or it's just a case of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At the very least, why the current sources are inadequate should have been discussed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Blatant keep, these numerous nominations of fictional characters have gotten way out of hand. This is obviously a notable character with a decent article.
talk) 00:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and improve: I could see how someone might say that there's issues with
WP:DUE weight, with editors overemphasizing certain primary (or even secondary) sources too much. But aside from too much detail and weight in certain statements, I see no issues with this article. There's lots of good references to pass AFD with flying colors. It looks like it even has the potential to be a good article one day. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:59, 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. Sandstein 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Akhtar

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

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

Unlikely to meet
WP:GNG, no matter how funny his run-in with Claude Littner was. Laun chba ller 15:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 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. Sandstein 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamo Davide Romano

Adamo Davide Romano (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 appears to be exaggerated paid for spam. He had a popular fb page but there's virtually no reliable, in depth coverage of it. I removed several sources which were low quality, click bait blog spam and tried to do a search for critical reviews of his books, of which I can find none. Fails
WP:NAUTHOR Praxidicae (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a website you pay your way into, we are not Who's Who.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet GNG, BASIC or NAUTHOR.   // Timothy :: talk 13:07, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pantelis Leptos

Pantelis Leptos (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 before search shows a hits in unreliable sources which have no reputable for fact checking. Generally, subject of the article lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of him thus fails the GNG test.
WP:ANYBIO is also not satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find significant independent coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Article does not meet GNG, BASIC, ANYBIO. Notability and sourcing guidelines should be strictly followed for BLPs.   // Timothy :: talk 03:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 16:15, 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 16:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon in India

Pokemon in India (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 completely unwarranted article simply because the show is NOT an original Indian series. Syndication of a series in another country, even if it is popular does not require a separate article. Imagine the mayhem that would ensue if articles were created for each and every country's broadcast for a magnum opus like Game of Thrones. The painfully long History section of the article basically notes each season's and in some places even each episode's telecast across networks in India and the rest of it is general coverage of each Pokemon movie's Indian title and broadcast network. In this case, the presence of sources does not automatically confer notability as most of it is marketing material. The article has already been deleted and recreated twice in the past one year without any major changes other than the title.[5][6] Fails
WP:SPLIT
.
PS: A redirect to any other article will be completely useless as the article is heavily edited by what looks like fans of the show and will likely be removed almost instantaneously.
Courtesy pings to the active editors involved at the previous Afd discussions; @
TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
TheRedDomitor (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and salt. Nothing has changed from prior AFDs. There’s no reason for this to be split out for India. It’s big there, but no bigger or different than any other country or region. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; marketing material is not evidence of notability; lacks evidence to justify a separate article Spiderone 15:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Show is in syndication and did not originate there for the English adaptation. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt into oblivion. Completely unwarranted content split. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under G4 and G11. Purely trivial fancruft. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – it will always blow my mind how these kind of articles even exist in the first place Aza24 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Delete this article should not delete because this article gives people trusted and faithful information. Chikukiri (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2020 (IST)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Clear Delete and possible Salt per the comments in nom. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Chikukiri is the creator of the article.
TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
If you want the article to stay up, it is best you say "Keep". Foxnpichu (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as this article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon anime in India and re-created. I agree with everything the nominator has put forward as well as the rationales provided in the last clear consensus deletion discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as a recreation of the original article. NonsensicalSystem^(err0r?)_(.log) 10:33, 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. A redirect can be optionally created, but this is perhaps not the most likely search term. Sandstein 17:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon in India

Doraemon in India (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 completely unwarranted article simply because the show is NOT an original Indian series. Syndication of a series in another country, even if it is popular does not require a separate article. The History section of this article, which is the only thing notable in the entire page has already been covered under the
WP:SPLIT
.
PS: A redirect to any other article will be completely useless as the article is heavily edited by what looks like fans of the show and will likely be removed almost instantaneously.
Courtesy ping to @
TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no evidence of notability and no need for the excessive listing of release dates for Disney Channel and Hungama. Any well sourced and notable info can be merged to the main Doraemon article but it looks like this is already adequately covered so outright deletion is the best option here in my view Spiderone 14:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is nothing to indicate that the franchise's airing in other countries like this is notable enough to warrant any kind of
WP:SPLIT to a separate article. As stated, the only information potentially worth saving is already present on the main Doraemon article, and this is not a useful term for a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, article is little more than a list of release dates. I do however find it very interesting that this article has 80,000 views a month, which is more than the article on Doraemon has. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'DO NOT DELETE' this article is helpful for people who cannot access the channel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:E16:E1A3:2877:2DB:B302:E194 (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pure fancruft.
Sunshine1191 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Not to Delete this page should be not deleted because this page gives people a faithful information about this show that people can trust. So I request not to delete this page.Chikukiri (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2020 (IST)

Wikipedia is not an
TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to List of non-Japanese Doraemon versions. This seems reasonable given that we have an article about the franchise outside of Japan. Just a note to the closing admin... we have page protection as an option for redirects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:47, 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. Redirect optional. Sandstein 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skywest Golf Course

Skywest 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)

Run of the mill golf course. Fails
WP:GNG ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:57, 7 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? 13:57, 7 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? 13:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Public course. Nothing special. Gets noted at Hayward, California#Sports which is probably sufficient. Text could be expanded there. Nigej (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 per
WP:NOTINHERITED. Almost every golf course has hosted some local championship. Redirect if you absolutely must. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuele Mura

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

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

non-notable vlogger, no meaningful coverage and the single few sources are unreliable or black hat SEO. Praxidicae (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable and promotional. Giant Snowman 14:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails to satisfy any notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are essentially 3 articles used as 'evidence' of notability here but they are all borderline PR articles; no evidence to suggest that this person is notable in their field Spiderone 22:13, 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. The one "keep" opinion makes no sense. Sandstein 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kya Chahiye Love or Gender

Kya Chahiye Love or Gender (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 does not meet
NFILM
there is no indication of coverage or other claim to notability.

The article is
only citing IMDB
, aside from that there are two external links: one for a pirating site, the other for an IMDB mirror.

The article is generally incoherent and without any
reliable sources
, it seems unlikely that can be improved on.

Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A ProD tag was removed without
giving any reason for its removal or noticeable improvements to the article. Paul Carpenter (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - in addition to the nominator's comments, there do not appear to be any reviews about this film, which tends to show a lack of notability Spiderone 19:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a bunch of best and great short movie out there, but they do not appere in many sites some are being sold by the producers to a production company to have the value to it and they send it to film festival, but on the other hand we have independent creators who made a short movie/film and upload it to a public domain like YouTube, both the film festivals film and the YouTube films are not having their data to 2 -10 website they just a imdb page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghav op (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, it will be impossible to source this to anything other than IMDb? That's more of a reason to delete than keep Spiderone 07:09, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yacine Aliane

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NFOOTY and not seeing any extensive coverage required for GNG Spiderone 18:59, 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 redirect to Vicious Delite. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious Delite (EP)

Vicious Delite (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)

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

Limited edition EP, no indication of notability, only reference is Allmusic (i.e. it exists!) Emeraude (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vicious Delite: Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vicious Delite   // Timothy :: talk 13:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Like most EPs, this is
run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sogan Kokou

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

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

Non-notable footballer who fails GNG. Barely scrapes through NFOOTY by playing a total of 5 minutes of professional football 8 years ago. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than 5 minutes of professional play to scape by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear GNG failure; almost nothing coming up for him at all on a search; barely any passing mentions let alone actual significant coverage Spiderone 11:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about footballer who made a single appearance in a fully-pro league, but which comprehensively fails
WP:GNG. There is some only Spanish-language coverage of his signing, but nothing in depth in Spanish or French. Jogurney (talk) 21:35, 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. Sandstein 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Throne

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

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

Fail
WP:BLP with two dead links and one unsuitable source. The Banner talk 09:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a horribly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 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 keep. Consensus that this is a notable topic, but may benefit from copyediting and potentially renaming. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First images of Earth from space

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

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

Arbitrary list of images based on the vague notion of 'first image' (first what, first ten? first fifty?). The subject may be more appropriate for a list article, e.g. List of images of Earth from space, with a table of entries in chronological order, which would immediately give the reader the first N images and all the following ones as well. Deeday-UK (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator – Now I see what the article's creator was trying to achieve, but the title is so ambiguous and the content so chaotic that I thought the article was hopeless (and it looks like I'm not the only one; therefore, I won't speedy-close this discussion myself).
I suppose the intention was to create a List of firsts in space imaging of Earth, rather than what the current title might as well suggest, i.e. an article about the earliest space images of Earth. Therefore, this article needs not be binned, as far as I'm concerned, but it needs to moved, restructured as a proper list and heavily pruned. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Right now article isn't good, but the subject is notable. A lot can be improved upon. 78.36.163.169 (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is merit here, I think the article should be moved to List images of Earth from space I don't know how many there are but they surely must be unique. Or the list could be date-ranged which adds a degree of precision. Govvy (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list grows by thousands new images every day, there's even a whole
fgnievinski (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong keep OMG, Wikipedia editors keep surprising me, in the wrong way. This could be a did-you-know feature article but instead someone thinks it's a non-notable subject. Did you try searching for reliable sources? How many do you want with nearly the same title as in the Wikipedia article?

First Photo From Space

The First Image of Earth Taken From Space (It's Not What You Think)

Milestones in Space Photography

First photo of Earth from space was from deadly rocket

Explorer 6: 60 years since first Earth photo from space

First Pictures of Earth From 100 Miles in Space, 1947

First image of Earth from the surface of the Moon: Surveyor 3

60 years ago first satellite image of Earth

70 years ago the first image of Earth was taken from space

The First Photo of Earth From Space Was Taken 70 Years Ago Today

Viewing The Earth From Space Celebrates 70 Years

Fifty Years Ago, This Photo Captured the First View of Earth From the Moon

Space Photos Before NASA: The Oldest Images Of Earth

The first photograph of Earth taken from space

60 Years Ago We Saw Earth From Space for the First Time — Here’s How We See It Now

Our home world from afar

And what about "vague notion" -- there is an article about
fgnievinski (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - as others have said, it is a notable subject. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia entry should have a well-defined topic. This is just a ill-defined list of self-defined "first" images. "First images of Earth from space"? What does that actually mean? Nigej (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable subject, although some cleanup and expanded context might be nice BlackholeWA (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of images of Earth from space. Category:Photographs of Earth from outer space has six entries, so there probably aren't a lot of notable more-general "images". Therefore, an ill-defined "initial" isn't required or wanted. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The six-entry category you mention refers to images from outer space. Any image of Earth taken from orbit could in theory be included in the list you propose, and that's probably hundreds of images, so such list seems to be too broadly defined. The original intention was (I believe) to list only the 'firsts' by some relevant criteria, e.g. first color picture of Earth from space, first photo taken from lunar surface etc., which makes more sense. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many notable images, and "firsts" are too open-ended. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean 'too open-ended'? A list of firsts is certainly less open-ended than a generic list of notable images. It is understood that firsts must be notable according to some meaningful criterion; e.g. "The first image of Earth from space taken on a Friday" isn't notable; "The first image of Earth taken from outside the solar system" is. --Deeday-UK (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who decides what's a "notable" first? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject. Something is not arbitrary when its defined as the "first" of something. Follow the sources.
talk) 11:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep but needs a strong
LINKFARM at "History," for example, needs to be removed, converted into prose, and added to the article body. These are editing issues though. The subject is interesting and notable, as "first" has a very specific meaning, so perhaps "Early" would be a better title modifier. Anyway, the content can be beefed up and the title adjusted accordingly. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename and define list criteria This should be something like "Milestone images of the Earth from space". Qono (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure? I suppose that works. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:28, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aksel Danielsen

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

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

Unless I'm missing something, he has only played youth internationals and in the extremely-far-from-professional Faroese football league. Only sources are statistics/trivial. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 08:07, 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. majority consensus for Delete, some people indicating a redirect might be approparite, but given the nature of the title, I think this is an unlikely search term. Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Saint-Germain F.C. 0–1 Olympique de Marseille (2020)

Paris Saint-Germain F.C. 0–1 Olympique de Marseille (2020) (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 this article meet
WP:NOT
? or was it just created due to the number of cards issued in the game?
If the latter is the reason, then I suppose matches with the highest number of cards in each top football league in the world should have a wiki page. Josedimaria237 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
Talk to my owner:Online 07:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 08:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong delete,
WP:NOTNEWS. Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the match may have attracted attention at the time, but I can't see anything to suggest the long term notability of the match that would meet
WP:GNG. The article even states the score was unremarkable, so the article is based on some minor fisticuffs. Not enough for me. Kosack (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -
WP:BEFORE. Arguing that "the article is based on some minor fisticuffs" is an absolutely ridiculous deletion rationale. Who gives a flying fuck what it's based on? The game obviously received significant coverage in reliable sources. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

That wasn't my deletion rationale at all, so i'd suggest taking it down a notch. My deletion rationale was that there is nothing remarkable about the game that will warrant any significant coverage outside of basic reporting that any match with a potentially controversial flash point receives. More to the point, this article could be more than adequately covered in Le Classique. Kosack (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that wasn't your deletion rationale at all then it was rather foolish to make a statement indicating such. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I clearly indicated my deletion rationale in the first sentence. I then commented how unremarkable this match actually was. If you think that's notable for an article, then there's only one person looking "foolish" as you say. Kosack (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale clearly eluded to the fact that articles do not exist for similar matches with high numbers of cards issued. I don't "think" it's notable enough for an article,
guidelines say that it is. You didn't strike out entirely though—you are indeed correct that only one of us looks foolish. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I never mentioned anything to do with other articles existing or not, so I have no idea what you're talking about there? I never even mentioned cards either? The fact that this is heading for a clear delete/merge consensus doesn't bode well for your understanding of what is notable or not either. Swing and a miss I'm afraid, and it's getting rather tedious. Kosack (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kosack: I somehow managed to confuse you with another editor. I am most dreadfully embarrassed and I apologize unreservedly. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with/to Le Classique; not independently notable but worth mentioning there (and indeed already is). Giant Snowman 11:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a nice size paragraph at Le Classique about the events so I think a merge is unnecessary. I am not convinced the redirect title will be used by people searching for the (dubbed the "Battle of Paris"). There are surely more sensible redirect options. As this is covered by the Le Classique article I say straight up delete. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per comments, above. As a non-football fan, I'll try and view this in a neutral light. All I can see is that it was a brawl at the end of the match when most of the red cards were given out. If it was multiple cards through-out the match, at regular intervals in normal time, then I'd be more inclinded to keep, but even that would be a push. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The section at
WP:N says "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article", otherwise we'd have an article on every single top-level football match. Nigej (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Le Classique#Cavani's free-kick, COVID-19 pandemic and "Battle of Paris", the match is already adequately covered there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched a video on YouTube of the sending offs, typed in battle of Paris into google and ended up on the wiki page with three links and one to this title, it’s a bit confusing why you use the title of the score line. Why do you need this article when there is enough on Le Classique page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:52:46AD:C5D0:9568:4231:3A60 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the purpose of a redirect as this isn't a title anyone is ever going to search for. It's not even the game with the most red/yellow cards – only the most in the last 20 years. Number 5 7 11:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A section about the match in the Le Classique article is more than enough.--Sakiv (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as others have already stated, this is already covered adequately in Le Classique. This match lacks independent notability. Spiderone 10:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cover this in summary style in Le Classique and let that be it. – Pee Jay 00:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It can be added in Le Classique. I dont think a sepeate page is needed Indianfootball98 (talk) 07:02, 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 16:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jgerda Church (Adagua mountainous area)

Jgerda Church (Adagua mountainous area) (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 that this meets
WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, one of a long series of nearly-identical, unreferenced articles on buildings in Abkhazia for which I can find no coverage online outside of the map reference given. Captain Calm (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I conducted several searches online and found
nothing reliable. An old church can be presumed notable, but you still need sources. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination --SalmanZ (talk) 14:31, 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 keep. withdrawn
(non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Khopi Saint Nicholas Church

Khopi Saint Nicholas Church (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 that this meets
WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have expanded the text and added a couple of academic sources. --Kober^Talk 16:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:HEY. There seems to be lots of old newspaper and book references to this church. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 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 keep.
(non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Chlou Holy Cross Church

Chlou Holy Cross Church (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 that this meets
WP:NBUILD. That would "require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails
~~WP:NBUILD, sourced only to a map which contradicts the article title. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)~~ Changing my vote to Keep per the additions of Kober, the new sources cause this article to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the article has been expanded with the addition of extra sources that seem to be reliable,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable medieval church. I have improved the prose and added additional academic sources. --Kober^Talk 19:52, 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. Sandstein 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deribb

Deribb (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 biographical article that fails
WP:BEFORE fetched similar impression. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 06:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Good catch @
WP:MUSICBIO. Possible UPE also. Celestina007 (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

This article meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia and hence should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penkingjackson (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Penkingjackson is the page creator. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails to pass general notability criteria and MUSICBIO. The author has created same page under a different title Deribigbe Benson

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:MILL. Other than the Pulse review, I don't see any real coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 16:14, 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 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Sharma

Rashmi Sharma (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 covers her production house Rashmi Sharma Telefilms more than it does her. Her production house has indeed produced many notable Indian soap operas but that doesn't transfer notability unto her from her shows or her production house as per
Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Sunshine1191 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Of the five references, one is a dud, tree is a passing mention, one is no mention. No significant coverage. Fails
WP:NPRODUCER. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete due to lack of
WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 19:44, 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. Sandstein 17:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Clinesmith

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

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

Run-of-the-
talk 02:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a minor non-notable government functionary lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 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. Sandstein 17:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Durai Sudhakar

Durai Sudhakar (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 - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. He played the lead role in Thappattam,^[1] the antagonist in Kalavani 2,^[2] and one of the leads in Danny.^[3]^[4] Passes WP:Nactor #1 (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.). TamilMirchi (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my vote to Delete.TamilMirchi (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.dailythanthi.com/Cinema/CinemaNews/2019/08/04125933/From-the-hero-to-the-villain.vpf

^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/040719/new-baddie-on-the-block-3.html

^ https://cinema.maalaimalar.com/cinema/cinemanews/2020/08/01132435/1747514/Durai-Sudhakar-attention-of-Danny.vpf

^ https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/210719/durai-sudhakars-tryst-with-a-dog.html

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His first film was a small budget non-notable attempt. A Google search gives hardly any reviews about the film. In other two films he did supporting roles. The subject fails
WP:TOOSOON for this. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment @The9Man: In agreement. Kindly delete the article. TamilMirchi (talk) 04:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quintype

Quintype (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 in-depth coverage of the company apart from routine funding announcements. Fails NCORP.
talk) 08:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have
talk) 00:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Spam target and UPE's. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. A web shop. scope_creep^Talk 21:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Fails
WP:CORP ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Per nom.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:45, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PotCoin

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

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

notability not established, all sources are from launch or they are primary, or they violate
WP:ORGIND. seems like just a one-time event, it is now discontinued and new sources will not appear. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Takes a lot more than this to rise from the mundane morass of cryptocurrency claimants. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has received some coverage, which goes beyond its launch and sponsoring one of Dennis Rodman's trips. I also found some reliable sources which talk about it: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]. There's also a book about it. That said, the article is good enough to pass
WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Superastig:
The book self-published (CreateSpace), it cannot be cited.
CryptoNinjas and Bitcoinist are blogs, and they not independent sources, and per consensus established on WP:RSN, a crypto-focused media like Bitcoin Magazine or Coindesk is not citable. CryptoNinjas has articles that are worse than the ones written by Aaron van Wirdum for Bitcoin Magazine (which is not allowed), so I don't think CryptoNinjas can be cited. CryptoNinjas invites you to contact them for advertising, it doesn't specify whether they would let you publish any piece, but I think it would be reasonable that they'd do that.
Bitcoinist is pay-to-publish, it cannot be cited.
You keep posting poor sources, and you always vote keep on cryptocurrency deletion discussions that I have started. I have repeatedly challenged you, and you have ignored me in e.g. AfD discussions like Bitcoin faucet, Bithumb, Coins.ph (in which I notified you about the high bar for sources of cryptocurrency articles). In the discussion of BitPesa, I have not challenged you (as I should have), but in that discussion you have admitted a source was not reliable (Disrupt Afrika), while at the same time posting a link to bitcoin.com, which is not independent at all (controlled by Roger Ver) and this is after I notified you that even CoinDesk cannot be cited. How can it be that you keep posting bad sources, and that you never defend them when challenged? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
talk) 18:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
short description. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_October_7&oldid=983605224"

[1] ttps://www.dailythanthi.com/Cinema/CinemaNews/2019/08/04125933/From-the-hero-to-the-villain.vpf

[2] ttps://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/040719/new-baddie-on-the-block-3.html

[3] ttps://cinema.maalaimalar.com/cinema/cinemanews/2020/08/01132435/1747514/Durai-Sudhakar-attention-of-Danny.vpf

[4] ttps://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/kollywood/210719/durai-sudhakars-tryst-with-a-dog.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]