Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 15

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. – bradv🍁 05:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Wendell

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

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

This pastor doesn't seem notable enough to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There is some sourcing ([7], [8], [9]) but it's really thin. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep' it is a good article and has a good source of informationAuthor Sanju (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wendell's arrest in May 1871 on a charge of seduction and fornication was reported nationwide — a couple examples are the New York Daily Herald and the Wheeling Daily Intelligencer. The Pittsburgh Commercial has more information about the incident, which they call "the Edinboro Sensation". I don't know if this is enough, but it's something to add to the pot, if there are other good sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are huge numbers of references in a wide variety of sources, many not yet digitised. Things like https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=theses https://www.amazon.com/Charles-Taze-Russell-Millennium-Message/dp/1449951570/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apple-Doesnt-Fall-Far-Tree-ebook/dp/B00YTA5P5C/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 are digital.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Master thesis' don't work for notability because they are original research. That aside, I don't think two books about Charles Taze Russell, which aren't about him and probably only mention him in passing in regards to Charles Taze Russell attending one of his presentations (since that seems to be only connection they have to each other) do either. People are named dropped in books about other people all the time. There has to be more then that for them to be notable though. Including in-depth coverage. Which books about other people don't usually provide. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding using theses: Not quite. The actual policy details are found here:

talk) 02:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

If we are going to assume, assume that, as Wendell was a major influence on Taze Russell, that Wendl will be mentioned more than in passing in biographies of Taze Russell. I am wondering if Adamant1 has ever read a book-length biography--most biographies have in-depth information about other people, excepting perhaps picture book biographies for children.

talk) 02:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, it is with the cavate that we should be careful about them. As they are sort of original research and it's much better if they are published in a journal where they get reviewed before being published. Although, I would be fine with it being used as an external link. Since the bar is kind of lower for them. As far as the biographies go, it's pretty irrelevant if I have read a lot of them or not (I have), because like you say in this particular case it would be an assumption either way anyway and AfDs are based on the facts, not personal assumptions of what a biography might contain because I've read some or whatever. That said, with the biographies I have read there wasn't usually in-depth details about other people in them. Except when the person that the biography was about had a close relationship to the person or at least was extremely important to their life (but even then really not). Which really isn't the case here. Since there's no indication Jonas Wendell and Charles Taze Russell were friends or had any kind of relationship what-so-ever, and all the article says is that attendance at Jonas Wendell's presentation "restored Charles Taze Russell's faith in the Bible." Which is a really vague and general statement, that doesn't actually connect the two in any meaningful way. Generally, I highly doubt there would be a long piece on someone who "restored" a persons faith in their biography. Honestly, I don't think it's very encyclopedic either. Plus, it's the defining of a passing mention. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, theses and dissertations go through an academic review process called IRB and are typically published in Proquest and often elsewhere.

talk) 15:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Just so you know, not all IRBs are equal and the "reviews" they do are of varying quality. Which is why Wikipedia prefers thesis that are printed in peer reviewed journals. Also, not all thesis are published on ProQuest or "elsewhere." Obviously some are, but the one we are talking about here isn't. It was "published" on the website of Seventh-day Adventist university college's library that the person who write attended. Which isn't ProQuest or anything like it. Id imagine their IRB is on the lower end to. Sure, we could have a discussion about extremely general, mealy mouthed things that are not relevent to the AfD though like "things are printed in differented places" and "people review things." As if both aren't extremely obvious or like anyone here was arguing that those things weren't the case. Adamant1 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you know that your assumptions about the quality of their thesis review process in 1947 do not signify.

talk) 00:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment BTW, I don't think that the sources provided by ToughPigs about his "arrest" should be included in this or the article. As the source about it says "No evidence of impropriety was ever produced." Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. I know that if you take that and the obituary stuff, which is pretty run of the mill, out of the article that nothing is really left though, but I still it's inappropriate to include it or use it for notability. Even there was a "cool nickname" attached to him being accused of crap. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure me saying Wikipedia isn't a tabloid equates to "The Associated Press is a tabloid," but whatever you say. Last time I checked

WP:SUSTAINED. I know certain people are a lot more lose with the guidelines then others though. As far as the nickname thing goes, ToughPigs said "the Wheeling Daily Intelligencer. The Pittsburgh Commercial has more information about the incident, which they call "the Edinboro Sensation"." 100% I would call a newspaper calling someone being accused of something, that again didn't go anywhere and that there was zero evidence of, the Edinboro "Sensation" rather sensationalist and tabloidlish. It would also be on Wikipedia's end to include it. Least of which because last I checked it's against covering accusations and people being arrested for things. Unless it's extremely notable and has sustained coverage. Which this wasn't and didn't have. Maybe you and ToughPigs are cool with Wikipedia including that kind of thing and using it for notability, but I'm not and I don't think Wikipedia is either. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as this minister meets
  talk) 00:32, 25 September 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 18:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Goodgame

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

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

Some coverage, but doesn't seem to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Lots of passing mentions in reliable sources but nothing very significant. Not seeing RS publishing interviews, profiles or the like. He won a talent show but that doesn't even seem to have an article so that's not a big help. Not much of the content is referenced. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the roles are certainly significant such as Danny Zucko in Grease in the West End, Billy Flynn in Chicago in the West End, lead roles in Cats, Thornbirds the Musical and others. Will look for more sources tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and speedy close. Extremely simple to turn up sufficient sourcing; just GSearch on Goodgame and the name of productions he has appeared in. Sloth and indolence are not among Wikipedia's five pillars. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• update, couldn't find too much except here, here,here, here, here (needs a subscription), and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this AfD has turned up sources to show notability. Atlantic306 has done some research. Passes
  WP:CREATIVE#3 Grease Wm335td (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The sources posted above are sufficient to pass
  WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:06, 22 September 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. After extended time for discussion, there is a narrow but definite consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 02:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izabella Nilsson Jarvandi

Izabella Nilsson Jarvandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I wish to nominate the page for Izabella Nilsson Jarvandi for deletion since I do not think it has any relevance. The given sources is monstly easily identified identifiable as tabloid and/or POV sources for right wing opinions. I have looked for sources without finding any from credible sources, and I even done a quick validation of the given sources and found them sadly lacking. The need for sources tag has been on the article for the better part of a year without anyone editing it adding any that is credible. To me it looks like this is just a page created to try to create an artificial sense of relevance to a person that is not relevant. --Grape (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm from Sweden and I can't say I recognize a single one of these sources as noteworthy, and they certainly don't seem reliable. The article notes that she has "7200 followers on Twitter" which doesn't exactly inspire much confidence that she's well known or has had any impact.
  talk) 19:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources could be better if not media self-censorship: journalists fear to be fired (to lose job). Bumbum (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's nonsense reasoning.
    talk) 14:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • She was on Russian TV-5 and this 9 min. material can be used as a source for Wikipedia [10] ( [11] ). Bumbum (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interviews are not very good sources, they don't usually indicate passing Wikipedia's GNG either.
        talk) 12:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • "Homosexual Adam and Eve, third-gender children: where does the illuminated Europe slides?" Looks like a tabloid, not RS. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I do not see RS in the article, and even if there are RS somewhere, article should be completely rewritten. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is sloppy, let’s be honest. But I don’t see a lack of notability expressed in the sources. I also don’t understand this trend of attaching Greta Thunberg’s name to every kid who has absolutely nothing to do with her subject.... Thunberg isn’t fighting alleged globalism. Jarvandi isn’t fighting inaction on climate change mitigation. (Edit:I’m not saying these sources are top notch, I’m going with
  WP:NEXIST.) Trillfendi (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What sources are you seeing here that are reliable and would indicate notability?
    talk) 20:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The Italian press seems to care, according to the BBC. E.g. the Italian edition of [Vice Media] and the Italian edition of

Huffington Post. Does Greta even know this girl is her so-called nemesis? If I called myself the anti-Miley Cyrus would anyone care? A German reporter dissects it. I won’t try to mine the Polish language references because my Polish is See Spot Run rudimentary (apparently Jarvandi opines about Poland’s anti-refugee policy?). I’ve also seen things in French and Dutch. If her claim to fame is latching on to Greta’s, it’s working, I guess. I just find myself perplexed as to what exactly she’s mad about. Trillfendi (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

To me the sources seem to be more about Greta, and the phenomenon of people who are upset at the attention she has recived. This girl (or her supporters) seem to be trying desperately to be noticed by association. Like I said above, I think its pretty telling that this Swedish girl has had essentially zero coverage in any Swedish news whatsoever, no one here has ever heard about her and her calim to fame is "7000 Twitter followers" yet tabloids in other countries seem to have tried to make a big deal out of it.

talk) 20:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I already mentioned they’re not fighting the same fight. They just happen to be born 3 days apart so naturally people want to extrapolate them. A newspaper would call this a “study in contrasts”. Greta’s fervor doesn’t grant notability to anybody but herself and her movement—not to Naomi Seibt either. (Nobody cares about trivium of her Twitter follower count and that sentence can easily be discarded.) It only adds to the irony of Jarvandi’s subject that her own country doesn’t pay much attention her, but others do as BBC referred to Il Fatto Quotidiano. And by Wikipedia’s standards, that’s good enough, unfortunately. Trillfendi (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I thought I had heard of this antithesis of Thunberg. But it must have been someone else. Because when searching (mainstream) media outlets in the neighboring country - coverage of a well-known figure would have surely spilled over the border - the result was 0 hits. Not a single one. There are some Italian ones though, but are they more than blogs? Geschichte (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most, like [12] are blogs or something of that kind. There are mentions of Jarvandi in some books on climate, but there are probably hundreds of people mentioned, such mentions do not provide notability. I can not find a single high-quality media that wrote an article on Jarvandi. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete creating articles on minors should follow having strong sources, which we do not have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 9 September 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. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margherita Lambertini

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

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

She got a few interviews as a human-interest subject as a "front-line worker" during the COVID pandemic, but that by itself does not seem to make the subject notable. All the coverage is the same: "This image shows Lambertini exhausted due to Covid, Lambertini also has a child with cystic fibrosis". The coverage is from a span of two weeks and appears to originate as a fundraising promotion by the Cystic Fibrosis Research Foundation ("Margherita is the protagonist of a new fundraising campaign promoted by the Cystic Fibrosis Research Foundation, here is the info on the campaign and on how to donate." from the Vanity Fair Italy coverage) – Thjarkur (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Basically
  WP:ONEEVENT. BD2412 T 22:58, 15 September 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.

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

)

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

Beijing bikini is summer street attire among some older Beijing men. Hardly "Chinese culture". Also, Beijing bikini deserves its own article, not a redirect. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close as an inappropriate forum. This should be addressed at
  WP:RFD. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdventHealth Ocala

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

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

This hospital doesn't seem notable. The article only cites a single primary source and I was unable to multiple in-depth reliable sources about it in a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to AdventHealth this would be the best thing for this article, this hospital could become notable in the future. A list is a list not an article don't water down a list like that.Catfurball (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect >>> List of AdventHealth hospitals Djflem (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations. Djflem (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Was a
  WP:BEFORE done on its original names - Florida Hospital Ocala and Munroe Regional Medical Center? – The Grid (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm not going to dignify the question with an answer, except to say if you have multiple in-depth reliable sources about the hospital under its old names feel free to provide them. That's what people usually do in AfDs instead of asking superfluous questions.

Sorry, I meant nothing bad by it. It's just when a hospital gets acquired by a network - the materials that made it notable or more verifiable were its origin history when it was perhaps more directly contributed with the community. I'm just speaking from personal experience from creating hospital articles. – The Grid (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I didn't think you did. I was just thinking you might have been able to find some sources have been sources I missed. I totally agree with you about it though. It seems like hospitals switch owners and names quit a lot. Which doesn't help with finding reliable sources about them. It seems like Google gives pretty different results for different people sometimes to. That doesn't help either. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 I just added some sources with what I've found so far. Removed the promo material as well. – The Grid (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks. I guess we will see if they are up the standards of

WP:NORG or not, but at least you added some. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Just adding vote after mutual discussion above with Adamant1. I think my edits to the page would be considered part of
  WP:HEY but I'm really neutral about the outcome here. – The Grid (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep My goodness, this hospital is nearly three times the average size of an American hospital, and it's a
  Level 2 trauma center – the only trauma center in a three-county area – but we're just going to say that it doesn't "seem" notable and try to delete the article? Because nobody ever writes anything about large hospitals? Or maybe the nom thinks that hospitals in general aren't notable, since he's been regularly nominating articles about hospitals for deletion (very few of which close with deletion)? Hint: When we're talking about a modern community hospital in the developed world, and you can't find multiple, in-depth sources for it, then problem is in your search methods, not with the notability of the hospital. And for reference, a Critical Access Hospital in the US is fewer than 25 beds, and those are notable, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • P.S. I just added three sources to the article, including information about the original building and where the money went when this city-owned hospital was leased to a private organizations. It wasn't hard. The only thing I did was look at the nearest daily newspaper and put the old name of the hospital into Google Books. I think it would be easy to do more if I wanted to spend any time on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, there is a basic premise underlining Wikipedia that people have to write about something for there to be an article about it. It is an encyclopedia after all. Not a business directory. Excuse me for not treating it like though. That aside, quite a lot of the articles I nominate get deleted and a lot of times when they don't its mostly because you, the ARS goons, and other people like you who think this is a phonebook and that there shouldn't be any inclusion criteria at all come along and steam role things by spouting nonsense and attacking nominators. Which isn't on me. Maybe I'd be more inclined to question my nomination record if they didn't involve so many utterly garbage keep rationales. I'm not really that about it though when most of the people who vote keep in the articles I nominate are doing so based on trash reasons like that I only nominated the article to target them because they edited it once 8 years ago. Considering things like that there's zero reason at this point that any of the people in your keep crowd should be taken seriously about anything. I don't see any of you criticizing your fellow keep voters who have legitimately less then less than stellar records either, nor do I because I think it's an extremely weak rhetorical method. That said though, I'd love to see you guys do it just for the sake of consistency. Get back to me when you've kicked everyone out of the Article Rescue Squad who has a less then 50% keep record (my delete record is way above that) or whatever. Then maybe I'll care about what you guys are saying. Until then though, I don't and I won't hold my breath about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure: people have to write something about for there to be an article. But journalists actually do write about hospitals, so that's not a problem. If you think that I'm one of the "ARS goons", then I'll point out that I substantially strengthened NCORP a few years ago. All those complaints about the unreasonableness of AUD for small businesses and local non-profits are complaints about what I wrote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think your one of the "ARS goons." Which is why I added there was the comma. I still think your a little more lose with the guidelines and quick to judge things then is helpful or productive sometimes though. That's all. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • P.S. BTW, I'd love to see the people, like Ritchie333 and others, who chided me for making things personal do the same thing to WhatamIdoing. Ten bucks says it never happens though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AGF? – The Grid (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: The nominator did not address the actual argument presented by WhatamIdoing, who added good sources to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm sick of having to repeat over and over to people like you and him that local newspaper articles about run of the mill crap like renovations or letters to the editor aren't usable sources for notability. It should be pretty obvious at this point that they aren't. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except they are, and that's why these nominations usually close as keep. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. You know what

WP:NORG says about trivial coverage and it's completely ridiculous to claim a letter to the editor is a reliable source. No where does it say in any guideline that they are and there's rules about local sources. Including that using the same one a bunch of times like WhatamIdoing did here doesn't count as multiple sources. Anyway, most of "these" nominations don't get closed as keep. Just the ones you and the other people who seem to care less about the guidelines are involved in. Plenty of my nominations have resulted in delete though. It's just that you and the other inclusion at all cost people don't ever have any better arguments, let alone any guideline based ones, then to attack nominators. Even Catfurball who mainly edits Seventh-day Advantist articles and probably has a connection to them said this isn't notable enough to keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: per the new sources added; seems like a prominent hospital. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per the others. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:38, 23 September 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. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glade, California

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

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

This is difficult to search for, but I found nothing beyond what is listed in the article, and since the source is Durham and it's indicated as a post office, bets are that that's all there was. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find nothing about this supposed community, other than that there was briefly a post office there. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 16 September 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. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loeffler, Missouri

Loeffler, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It was a post office, not a town. See State Historical Society, old county history, and the 2015 topo, which has Loeffler next to a square labeled "PO". Other recent topos don't include Loeffler. Search for GNG coverage failed. As an isolated post office, it fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Yet another NN rural post office. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 16 September 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. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver

Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for substantially the same reasons I put forward in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto Real Estate Board, deleting another article from the same editor: "Non-notable local (not even national or provincial) industry group of real estate agents. no independent coverage or other indication of notability. Despite the word 'Board' in its title, it is not a government agency. The article is mostly used as a vehicle to promote the organization and needs to be constantly policed to remove hype and unsupported claims." TJRC (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Other than listings of homes, flats, etc., for sale, no results come up in reliable, independent, secondary sources. No general notability. If the article author was authentic, at least a substantiated history of this board could have been supplied. Alas, we get this page. $1.5 million for a detached house in Greater Vancouver? My, my, I shouldn't wonder. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miami New Drama

Miami New Drama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Coverage of a theater company's productions is coverage of the theater company. There's more than enough coverage to satisfy the GNG. This is a waste of time and should be withdrawn or speedy kept. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of coverage; several notable directors and playwrights, including Christopher Renshaw. Easily satisfies NCORP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sufficient coverage for the article to stand. I think it's time to drop the stick. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The appropriate guideline is
  HighKing⁺⁺ 10:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited and coverage of the productions does not bestow notability on the production company any more than it would bestow notability on the director or the theatre. The appropriate guideline is
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Founded by notable founders and has received extensive coverage from Miami Herald. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

HighKing⁺⁺ 10:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. It's a notable and important theater company and has a good amount of coverage, especially for a company that's only 4 years old. It has even been on PBS: [16]. Coverage will only increase as time goes on. Softlavender (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've already noted in my !vote above that not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and yet not only has not one single Keep !voter put forward any rebuttals, two more Keep !voters have appeared who also either don't understand the criteria in NCORP, or who perhaps foolishly believe that the closing admin will simply count !votes. Just FYI, this isn't a !vote counting exercise. If you believe a reference exists that meets the criteria, post the link here so others can comment. For example, the PBS link posted above fails the criteria - it is an interview with a person connected with the company and provides zero information on the company itself since the discussion is about the production/play, fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or redirect - notability of the theatre is not inherited to the production company.
  talk) 22:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Nobody has said or even implied that it is. This is a notable theater company with tons of coverage. Softlavender (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Here are some sample articles that show this theater company easily meets
  WP:NCORP: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. These articles are about the theater company, not about the theater. A theater is just an otherwise empty building (and the Colony Theater hosts other arts, not just Miami New Drama). The significant coverage in these articles is about Miami New Drama, not about (or in a couple of cases not just about) the productions. Softlavender (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Response
    WP:NCORP
    (at the same time). There also isn't a need to provide 9 references (that's refbombing) as you could have simply posted what you consider to be the best 3 (especially as there's nothing new here - they're already all in the article). I'll comment briefly on each one below:
    • This from American Theatre is already in the article and you linked to it above twice in your list. I'll spend more time explaining why this reference fails the criteria for establishing notability. The article starts by saying how the theatre was only steps from a large BLM protest and then quotes the artistic director on the issue. There is zero in-depth information on the company other than one sentence which states Founded by playwright and director Hausmann and playwright/director Moisés Kaufman, Miami New Drama is a nonprofit professional theatre company committed to artistic excellence and groundbreaking work unique to the diverse city of Miami, with a vision of theatre as a powerful form of social engagement. You'll find minor variations of this sentence in hundreds of similar "articles" on this company. This is not in-depth information but a generic statement. The article then continues with a narrative switching between quotations from people involved with the company and then essentially framing the comment into the narritive. This is the epitome of
      WP:ORGIND
      for the lack of any "Independent Content" on the company.
    • This from the Miami Herald is already in the article. It fails
      WP:ORGIND
      as the information on the company has clearly been provided by the company.
    • This from Miama New Times is entirely based on an announcement by the City of Miami Beach (it says it in the article). Peppered with quotes from involved people, nothing original. Fails
      WP:ORGIND
      .
    • This from Broadway World is based on two pieces of news - the second is based on an announcement by the Knight Foundation although it isn't clear on where to attribute the news about staying in the same venue for the next 5 years. It's news but there's no attributed journalist (just "the newsdesk") but more importantly there is no Independent Content as per
      WP:ORGIND
      . It's the same formula of quotations and text framing the quotes into the narritive.
    • This from Times of Israel is based on an interview with a company executive and provides detail on his past and life journet. There is zero "Independent Content" concerning the company, fails
      WP:ORGIND
    • This from Theater Mania is entirely based on an interview, no "Independent Content", fails
      WP:ORGIND
      .
    • This second from American Theatre has zero in-depth information on the company (other than what plays are current and the obligatory quotation from the company executive), fails
      WP:CORPDEPTH
    • This from NBC News is mainly about the company executive and only mentions the company in passing with zero in-depth information. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
    • In my opinion, there's already plenty said about this company in the article on
      HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • HighKing, at this point you are making up rules, not adequately reading the articles (try doing Control+F miami new drama on each), and just doubling down on your initial negativity. I can't even take you seriously at this point, especially when you say "there's already plenty said about this company in the article on Michel Hausmann and it this company is not notable in its own right". Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Softlavender, I think you'll find that I pretty much only participate in AfDs for organizations and not for other topics. Here's stats on the latest 200 AfD's I've participated in. So telling me that I'm "making up rules" is pretty lame and nonsensical considering that my stats show my !vote agrees with consensus over 87% of the time whereas your stats show agreement only 68% of the time. So I'd guess I've probably a more in-depth understanding of this stuff that you do. I've tried to explain to you why exactly the references fail the criteria for establishing notability. If you prefer to disagree, fine, but this isn't a !vote counting exercise and the closing admin will weigh the arguments. So far, I've responded to every reference and rather than you pointing out which parts of the guidelines you think I'm misinterpreting, or why, you've resorted to name calling. Doesn't look great.
          HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Keep – Concurring with Softlavender and Ssilvers. I don't think an outfit for which NewsBank finds hundreds of mentions – in Spanish as well as English – can be dismissed as not notable. Tim riley talk 21:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hundreds of 'mentions'" isn't one of the criteria. You only need a minimum of two which meet the criteria for establishing notability.
    HighKing⁺⁺
    • How many would you like? Just check out the detailed coverage in NewsBank. Tim riley talk 21:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't about the volume. There could be thousands and the topic might still fail the criteria for establishing notability. Check out
        HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• By all means. Link here. You will need a subscription but I imagine an expert like you will have that already. Tim riley talk 19:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, so you can't (or won't) post anything other than a vague wave in the general direction of an archive. I've already looked at hundreds of articles mentioning "Miami New Drama" and none meet the criteria for establishing notability as per
  HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You really are terribly hard to please. You ask for a link and I provide one. I have done precisely what you asked: why not look at some of the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim riley (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Because your argument is the equivalent of
  HighKing⁺⁺ 22:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I can answer your simple request: your above analysis of the NBC News article "Theater that reflects a changing America? Venezuelan Michel Hausmann is doing it in Miami" is incorrect. It has lots of information about the company and its development. It has a focus on the founder and artistic director, because that is what news articles do when they write about a theater company. If you want to say that a mid-size national news article directly about the subject of this article is insignificant then I suppose that's your right, but please don't harangue people who disagree. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No, saying "
  'but there's loads of links on Google'." -- Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep An important young professional theatre company with important productions and directors which has received extensive coverage, not only in local papers but also national and international sources.Jack1956 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - despite the declined RfCs, it has significant coverage and was founded by notable people. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:39, 23 September 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. Default to keep. – bradv🍁 05:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kavya Suresh

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

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

Non-notable actress that I created. Only 2 sources exist. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this person is not a notable actress. There is not enough sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tried to find articles about them on Google but nothing came up. Definitely not notable. VocalIndia (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she has starred as major roles in two films Thenkashikattu and

WP:NACTOR#1? . VocalIndia (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Changed my opinion to Keep per

WP:NACTOR. VocalIndia (talk

)|

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Even disregarding all the suspicious votes, there is not enough support here for deletion. – bradv🍁 05:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BreakTudo Awards

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

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

Related to BreakTudo website. Also not relevant. Article also deleted in other languages, as in the native version.

PS: This proposal extends to

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable awards. Clear attempt to use Wikipedia for
  Dimmi!!! 20:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I vote to keep this article on Wikipedia. I am a publisher on Brazilian Wikipedia and in fact the article does not exist on wikipedia in Portuguese, however, I noticed that there is a plot in Brazilian wikipedia to block the article and this same plot has been working to eliminate this page here on wikipedia in English. This editor who marked the elimination page is constantly blocked on the Portuguese wikipedia due to vandalism. Today, he did several vandalism actions on the pages of
  Yahoo, RTV 21, MSN, Telegrafi, Jawa Pos, Allkpop, among many others. The conspiracy charge is because this same group of Brazilian wikipedists came together to eliminate the page in Spanish, using false justifications. In the same Brazilian wikipedia, there are pages for awards such as Capricho Awards, Prêmio Contigo Online and Prêmio Quem Online, which are mere online polls and which receive coverage only in the vehicle that promotes them, differently from the BreakTudo Awards that today are really big in the country. I ask the attention of the wikipedists English natives for this fact this group of Brazilian wikipedists is acting, in Brazil they are the same ones that bar influencers like Leo Picon and Nah Cardoso. The award is publicized by several Brazilian artists and nothing that is not really relevant would get such coverage. It is clear that it is an act of vandalism and boycott, something that harms Brazilian artists, who struggle for recognition in the world of music. SHE Pabllo Vittar (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • First of all, the fact that the editor who nominated this article for deletion was blocked on pt.WP doesn't matter here. Second, your accusations against him are
    Dimmi!!! 22:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Keep I too vote that we keep the article. I looked into it and was able to find coverage online from third parties. These awards are newer but do seem to be notable in Brazil. I can add more to the article too. FanDePopLatino (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dimmi!!! 23:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • SirEdimon Sure. These are some of the ones that I found: here's one, here's another, here's another one, and here's one more. FanDePopLatino (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Tudo Information is another spammer that is appearing in the project. BlastingNews is a collaborative website.
        talk 05:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Dimmi!!! 22:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Keep I have been a user of Brazilian wikipedia for 6 years too and I vote for we keep the article. The award is notable in Brazil and here is sufficient coverage to maintain the article. Some sources here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9, 10, 11, 12 EmersonGuui (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. The arguments given by the users above clearly show that this is a notable award in Latin America. Batmanthe8th (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These is not notable in Latin America, this why it was deleted in Pt.WP and not even exist in Spanish WP.--
    Dimmi!!! 22:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • talk 10:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]

      JardelW, Even with my minimal Spanish skills, I got a chuckle out of how Google Translate turned "Bórrese" into "Delete yourself" :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

      ]

• Keep It is certainly a notorious award in Brazil. As mentioned above, there is a lot of coverage from many reliable and independent sources, I vote to keep this page on wikipedia. Raonyphillips (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a Lusophone's sysop and CheckUser. I attest that the BreakTudo Awards theme was a constant target of puppets, abusing recreations disrespecting the community's decision. So I am not surprised to see new accounts being created to defend maintenance. About the award, this is more media than notorious. Therefore, there will obviously be numerous sources addressing the topic. In contrast, the overwhelming part of the sources comes down to rubbish from entertainment portals and many publish paid content. Another part of the sources are "lists" of nominees/winners or report a particular celebrity competing. These, by the way, cover more personality than the prize.
  A brief analysis of some of the sources cited here in the discussion:
  • Observatório de Música: it belongs to a "network" of entertainment sites, they publish advertisements and make "news" based on posts from Instagram and Twitter, as appears to be the case since it quotes a tweet.
  • Extra: blog hosted on the domain, passes content paid naturally.
  • Blastingnews: collaborative
  • TodaTeen: says that Manu Gavassi was nominated, talks more about the singer than about the award.
  • Click Paraná: advertising, see "Por Assessoria"
  • Blogue
  • Countless sources that only speak of the nominee
  • CNN: mention, reports that the group won the award and continues talking about the group.
  • Yahoo: collaborative base fan transfer.
• Finally, there is no first-rate source in Brazilian journalism that supports any importance of the award. Examples: Folha SP, Estado de SP, G1, Gazeta and Zero Hora. The award is only mentioned in worthless entertainment portals. Some mentions there and here, some repercussions about nominees and winners... and is that significant coverage from reliable sources? Do not. It has already been eliminated in Portuguese, Spanish and Korean and everything is part of a "saga", according to the editor "SHE Pabllo Vittar". Honestly, you need to have a lower reasoning ability to discuss issues that already begin in this way. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 12:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: There are reliable sources that mention this award. UOL's Observatório da Música , Globo's Extra and UOL's Toda Teen. Extra is a major news source, owned by the giant Globo. Toda Teen and Observatório da Música are maintained by UOL, a big news sources on the internet. I don't know if that should be enough to keep the article, and I don't know if they prove the award is notorious enough, so that's why I won't vote. But there are reliable sources that talk about it, no doubt. Mateussf (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The coverage from trusted sources is quite significant, and moreover the tabloids usually talk more about the artist than about the award itself, it is normal. The award is notorious in Brazil, this is clear. I am Brazilian and a fan of pop culture, I can speak properly about the notoriety of the awards.
  talk) 01:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Private messages are being sent on Facebook asking for support to keep. This page has already become the target of
  meat puppetry. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 23:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Given the likely metapuppetry, would it be worth notifying this to the administrator noticeboard? Foxnpichu (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Predofarofa Sorry about that. I wasn’t suggesting that you in particular were a meatpuppet, I just thought that some of the activity in this AfD appears suspicious. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:25, 24 September 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. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Lyon

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

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

The article fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our already very broad inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the actor passes
  WP:NACTOR#1 with roles in multiple television productions. Wm335td (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom. NACTOR #1 states "significant roles". He doesn't have them. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom and
  WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete
  WP:NACTOR#1 requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Significant roles. I’m not seeing that here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 22 September 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.

Timeline of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season

Timeline of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Isn't this just a copy of the main article? I don't see any need to have this when we already have a season summary in the main article.

• Weak Oppose These timelines are a standard part of the tropical cyclones Wikiproject. You can start a discussion there on whether this part of the project should continue. I don't think it's completely redundant to have the season distilled to a bare-bones timeline. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: Well stated; it appears that the editor is not aware of how many TLs there are or of their purpose, not to mention how many are B-class or Featured List articles, and jumped from "why does this page exist" to "get rid of it" without first seeking understanding.Drdpw (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – These articles are a part of the project, and while this one needs to be updated (and I have no doubt it will be once the season calms down), it shouldn't be deleted. United States Man (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I always saw them as a content fork. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This general issue was discussed at length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season. This timeline is distinct from the one discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 1997 Atlantic hurricane season, given that the current season is not a low-activity year. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - If you want to delete it, discuss it at
  WP:WPTC, these timelines are vital to the project (I'm baaaaaack from vacaaaaation!) 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I understand why timelines are needed and see no reason to delete them... We cant show every status change on the main article. This is just an organized way of showing that. Noah^Talk 11:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article, like the other season TL articles, provides information about comprehensive information detailing the life cycle of each tropical cyclone of the hurricane season in a unique (“not found in other articles”) way. Drdpw (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep There's long-standing precedent for such articles and its purpose is generally to include detail that cannot be included in the main article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Clearly the nom is not aware that such articles are a standard part of this WikiProject, any objection to this should be discussed at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones and not here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, the nom only has 55 edits. Users in that low level of experience really can't do good XfD nominations. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this covers a different level of detail than the main article (exact location, every category change) and is definitely not a duplicate. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on grounds of long standing precedent for timelines (see XFD from 2011).
  Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• KEEP Redundant to remove only one timeline article when we make them for most modern seasons. They also have purpose sooooo ~ AC5230 talk 17:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – Long-standing precedent to create these kinds of articles. They are very standard and serve an effective purpose of breaking down the events in each season. Master of Time (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KeEp per everyone that said keep, these have always been in hurricane season articles, so no
  talk) 19:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Keep per everyone else. It's precedent to have a timeline. Rainclaw7 (talk)
• kEeP, it's a pretty useful article and once we can finally update it to the present, it should be okay.
  talk) 02:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy keep for reasons listed by everyone else. It's a standard precedent to have the timeline page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Standards!
  9thx my edits 12:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This discussion again? Ugh. LOL! Please close it and make it a day. This needs to be kept so stop trying to get rid of it.ChessEric (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep timelines are a vital part of our season article package. JavaHurricane 03:59, 21 September 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.

Sayonara (Red velvet song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

The song does not appear to have charted, therefore not meeting

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: should be redirected to
  Sayonara (Red Velvet song) already exists as a redirect, I think the new editor who created this article in good faith didn't know how to overwrite the redirect. Richard3120 (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per
  WP:NSONG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Sappy (EP): Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Sayonara (Red Velvet song) with different caps) should be cleaned up. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:59, 22 September 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. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebb, Missouri

Ebb, Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

State historical society calls it "Ebb Post Office", suggesting it's just a post office. Not on the 1937 topo. The only small-scale topo this appears on is 2011, where it's marked as "Ebb Post Office". Google Maps flips out when I try to search for this place, as it apparently has no idea where this is. Everything calls this a post office. Nothing besides GNIS even suggests this was a community. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot even find passing mentions in newsprint 1880-1902. Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Here again we see the mysterious "PO" notation appearing on the most recent topos; before that, nothing. Pretty clear it was just a post office. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 15 September 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) 18:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2021 Summer World University Games

Football at the 2021 Summer World University Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a hoax as the 2021 Summer World University Games will not have a football tournament. Spiderone 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. GiantSnowman 21:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the FISU University Football World Cup replaced the competition held at the World University Games, this means that this article is a hoax. HawkAussie (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of you. IPOokap (talk) 20:05, 16 September 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 Minecraft. There is a lot of discussion here, but the general consensus is that the topic is relevant (though people differ by how much), and may be notable. However, there is more weight that independent notability has not been clearly demonstrated, so a redirect is merited. If there's content that's worth merging, it can be added from the history. I'd recommend putting a recreation through AFC if any user feels they can demonstrate stand alone notability in reliable sources. I would be happy to move this content to the draftspace/userspace upon request (though it isn't deleted, so anyone can do so on their own initiative). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redstone (Minecraft)

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

)

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

Delete per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Redirect to
  WP:SPLIT from the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep — I think the article could definitely be improved and expanded to talk more about how "redstone engineering" has been used as a form of building working electronics completely within Minecraft. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That concept is already discussed in the main Minecraft article under the "Education" heading, though. And like I said, I don't see that section needing to be Split off into its own article when it can be, and already is, easily discussed in the appropriate main article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (redirect) as a non-notable item in a video game failing
  WP:VG/RS. The content about redstone creations is sourced but not specific to redstone itself and can be in the game's article as relevant and does not need a split. Otherwise, it's gamecruft. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Hellknowz: Regarding your second point, if that is the case then you are suggesting a merge. In this case deletion is inappropriate as it will remove attribution of contributions. Polyamorph (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not suggesting a merge. Minecraft article already covers redstone creations with good sources. There are no sources and no content I consider worth merging here. This is gamecruft with dubious sources -- it's all tutorials and update notes. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying. Polyamorph (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (but revert to draft) - I agree with
  Netherite and Iron Golem (had it not been recently deleted). Squid45 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • See
    WP:AMOUNT. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete (redirect) unless the article can be properly expanded. I do see the potential in such an article (there's tons of stuff people have made with redstone that got large media coverage), but until then there's no reason for a split. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Minecraft: Not in and of itself notable, but is a notable part of the Minecraft game Ed talk! 20:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Minecraft, clearly relevant search term. The construction of in-game logic and more complex circuits is eminently notable backed up by relevant sources. Polyamorph (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The topic does not currently establish notability. Given the prevalence of articles based on the various insane contraptions built in the game, I wonder if there are enough reliable sources to maybe make an article based around that instead. TTN (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of stand-alone notability, fails GNG/NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Keep article. but stub it.110.137.157.179 (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect. I can't think really of much content that could be placed on this page apart from
  WP:GAMECRUFT, and I say this as a Minecraft Wiki admin, as you can see most of this article is just a summary of the history section of the MC wiki page for redstone. The fact that there is a large community around redstone would be better placed at the Minecraft article, as that is a reception to the game itself, and doesn't need a non-notable split.  Nixinova   T   C   22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• tentative Keep as an entity with some out-of-universe relevance and hence sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative draft as this has some serious potential (I'm fairly sure Redstone is notable enough in its own right) but the article isn't quite there yet and needs some better sources. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sure, it may be a notable part of the game but not notable enough for its own article unlike Creeper

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 Minecraft. The need for a stand-alone article has not been demonstrated, and independent notability outside of Minecraft is not shown. Clearly plausible search term, however. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netherite

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

)

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

Delete per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The current article is nothing but a game guide, as are the sources being used. The only actual mentions of the material that aren't just how-to guides are basically just summaries and/or patch notes for the update that introduced it to the game. There is absolutely no in-dept coverage that would allow this to pass the
  WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - I proposed a deletion but it was contested via DEPROD'ed. Reasons were
  WP:GAMECRUFT. SWinxy (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as a non-notable entity in a video game failing
  WP:VG/RS. This is gamecruft and most of the sources are update news/change log material. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Any article made on this subject would fail
  WP:GAMEGUIDE, there's just no coverage that's not plot works. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but revert to draft) - I think that this could become an encyclopedic article over time. However, I can appreciate that keeping it in the mainspace for now may not be the best thing to do, so I suggest that it gets reverted to draft form. That way it can get improved upon over time and eventually, when it is encyclopedic enough (and hence passes
  WP:GNG) can be reaccepted into the mainspace. I believe the same is fair to Redstone and Iron Golem (had it not been recently deleted). Squid45 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As I said in the nom, I don't see this ever becoming notable. Mere mentions are not enough, it needs to be substantially discussed. This is very rare for enemy mobs or game objects, even in the most widely known and popular games.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Minecraft, clearly relevant search term. Polyamorph (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hmmm, seems we found some Minecruft. Delete for failing GNG/NFICTION _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need a WP:MINECRUFT? SWinxy (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is “Minecruft”? Squid45 (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a portmanteau of "Minecraft" and "

fancruft". Ionmars10 (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlike redstone, which I can see having some notability in regards to its popularity, there is literally nothing notable about Netherite at all, and this is pure
  WP:GAMECRUFT.  Nixinova   T   C   22:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to minecraft as a plausible search term Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, move to draft, redirect: Article should be deleted and made a redirect to Minecraft, then moved to draft. This maybe has the potential to be a stand-alone article, but not in its current state. It should be developed further in draftspace. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd be up to help improve it once it's in the draftspace, I'm not just saying "someone else do it" :P Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The correct procedure will then be move to draft (not delete to preserve history) and redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 23 September 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. Tone 10:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Finegold

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 17:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak-ish keep per [27], [28] (in French), [29] (best source). Being the rabbi of the oldest Jewish congregation in Canada, as the last article (in the
  Montreal Gazette) claims, seems like a very good indicator of notability. He's also cited as an authority on religious issues in the Canadian press, e.g., [30], [31]. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep Thank you AleatoryPonderings I was leaning delete. We likely have enough for
  WP:GNG A few of the sources are non-trivial - just not in major publications that I am familiar with. As far as I know we do not have any notability passes for Rabbis. This Rabbi is the Executive Director of the Montreal Board of Rabbis may give him a bit more than other Rabbis. Wm335td (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  WP:BASIC/GNG here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, significant position in major community.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:49, 17 September 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 FIFA World Cup. Fenix down (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2038 FIFA World Cup

2038 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The Ghana bid is provisional on several elements and the other two are speculative. Clearly

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to FIFA World Cup, as I believe has happened in the past. GiantSnowman 18:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not sure what to do about these future events, I nominated a few that were 100+ years in the future and they were kept. My
  WP:CRYSTAL does not look that far ahead. Lightburst (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is way too soon as this article is both
  WP:TOOSOON. And we don't even know if there will be a World Cup 18 years from now. Pahiy (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to FIFA World Cup. Far too soon to have its own article. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect per
  WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. This is way too soon. Eti15TrSf (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect (and protect for at least a year) per everyone above. The bids are all far too speculative to have any content here.
  π, ν) 04:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I just now noticed that this a second nomination! Yes, by all means
    WP:FOOTY project request unlocking when the bidding process actually commences. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Redirect until such time as we know something less speculative -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and
  WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• SALT Clearly Either or Or, but the competition is way off, one thing is for sure these world cup articles should be salt'ed. Govvy (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]