Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 14

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Allen Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm genuinely struggling to think over the consistent blatant COI SPA accounts that have been consistently maintaining this article over the past 13 years, but I don't think there's quite enough to meet NAUTHOR. I found a couple of reviews in unremarkable publications. He's done some work, but I'd expect significantly more coverage to establish notability, particularly given that, according to our article, he has published hundreds of articles and over 25 books, drawn considerable attention to his work, has the distinction of being the only person to serve the International Boxing Hall of Fame as an author, historian, chairperson, sponsor, volunteer, and biographer. (I wonder why), his book even hit #1 on Amazon's List of Hot New Releases in Boxer Biographies-the book also hit #1 New Release in Jewish Biographies in December 2017. and don't worry, because he's an active member of the community &c &c &c ... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Canvass alert: I saw this article thanks to the nominator raising it in a public chat. That said... delete, barring substantial improvements (I might have given the maintainers a week or two with a notability tag before AfD'ing, but I doubt it would have helped much). Everything is referenced to primary sources or irrelevant - the Connecticut Magazine link about Revolutionary era spies is dead, but even if it was up, who cares? If it backs up that list of spies, that doesn't mean Baker's work here was notable. The only non-primary source is an offline (and thus uncheckable) link that references the claim Baker "was active in the central New York music scene" during his undergraduate years at college. Who cares, that's true of thousands of people, "being active" doesn't show notability. On the off chance Baker really is notable, there need to be independent sources discussing Baker or his work - stuff like a book review of one of his 12 published works, and not a book review made by a blog or random Internet personality or the like. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The maintainer of the article has since added a bunch of sources, but... the vast majority are citing Mark Baker. That's still a primary source. The few references that don't cite Baker directly I can't verify - the link is to just the front page, not to the specific book review itself. Even if the link was fixed, these websites appear to be low tier sources, the equivalent of minor boxing fansites. The problem with primary sources hasn't been fixed. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, alarming lack of RS. The Hartford Courant article was written by the subject himself. Caro7200 (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete per

• • G12 doesn't apply if the author themself is the one putting the content on Wikipedia. You can't infringe your own copyrights, and Wikipedia actively encourages donating such material under a free license. On the off chance that this author is notable, the copyvio isn't a concern assuming Baker was involved in or otherwise approves of this Wikipedia article (which he surely is, given the depth of minutiae only Baker or his close friends would know). SnowFire (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, SnowFire. Without a public disclosure that this was released to us, can we conclusively say that this was done by Baker? For all we know, it’s an ardent fan and follower of any social media channels. I'm not saying that's true; just that it’s possible. I'm really new to the AfD process, so set me right I'm wrong! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP editor who added those should affirm that they own the rights on the talk page. (If they wanted to be really by the book, they could file an ORTS ticket, but that is probably overkill and a waste of time for an article that is likely to be deleted anyway - just the talk page assertion would be fine for now.) SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I disagree, really. The user in question created another, recently deleted article (which was entirely plagiarised -- 94% on Earwig's tool. I think it stands to reason that this is someone zealous, but I'm not convinced it’s the author. Nor do I think that this user thinks that main space is a user page; they are clearly reading this (your mention that they had added more "primary sources" resulted in them saying they had added secondary and tertiary sources; note that they are still interviews). I'm not convinced of notability, but I could be swayed. The main issue for me right now is this user's penchant for using intellectual property on here and not responding when pressed about it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Either delete or maybe userfy, as at this point I am convinced that the creator literally thinks that this is a user page. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and
  what Wikipedia is and is not. The references are terrible, the writer has not made a major contribution to literature, and the formatting is awful. We have deleted user pages that have been used for spamming and self-promotion. Even if this person was to become notable in the future, abusing editing privileges must have consequences. Bearian (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:TNT are incompatible -- 'blow it up and start over' is a different pitch to 'never start again'. Recommending them in the same breath sounds closer to 'dropping policy and essay acronyms that you think make your point' than genuinely making a strong argument. And regarding "Even if this person was to become notable in the future, abusing editing privileges must have consequences", the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to punish people for dumb things they did once. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Userfy and link the author
  WP:FAMOUS. This is...a messy one. It really does look like the author thinks he's in userspace. I suspect an explanation on what making a page for yourself means may well result in G7 speedy deletion, which would solve our problem for us. I'm currently working on an article that was a PRODded COI mess when I found it, so that firsthand experience with how to rescue such an article is informing my !vote here. (When I first saw this AfD, I put some serious thought to going on a deep-dive for actual information on the author...but I think I'd rather let him decide if he actually wants a Wikipedia page with all that comes with first.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. The plagiarism issue has not yet been sold, but the sources are still failing to determine any actual notability. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just gone through the article more closely. Basically everything in the article fails even basic verification; links have no archived version and are hard redirects to main pages (or broken outright). Numerous problems with POV that indicate the subject or someone close to them is involved in the article. The editor started by writing an article filled with statements that break NPOV (and verifiability), and then tried to work backwards from there; the sources are always going to fail here, because they are only serving to provide an illusion of depth, rather than any meaningful content. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a follow-up, the article's main (and really only) contributor has been banned for undisclosed COI and account sharing. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• talk) 01:08, 23 January 2021 (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.

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

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

BLP with only reference his own website Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: aside from the nom's issues (which I agree), there appears to be a copyvio as well. ~RAM (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete -
  WP:G12; the entire article is copied from a non-free source Spiderone 09:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Don't speedy delete. The copyright violation was added to the article 12 years after it was created, so this should simply be reverted (with revision delete if we are to be completely above-board) and a normal AfD discussion should take place. Doesn't anyone look at an article's history before commenting here?
  Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Another thing to do is to look at the same article in other languages. He's Italian, so the Italian one is the first place to look. It has multiple sources; I can't read Italian, so haven't opened them, but they're a good place to start. The Italian version has a discography, which shows that he's recorded for
  WP:MUSICBIO #5. AllMusic has reviews of lots of his albums, and finding other sources isn't difficult – enough for MUSICBIO #1. I'll add sources to the article later. EddieHugh (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've now added sourced material to the article and removed the rest. It's enough for the criteria that I mentioned, but let me know if more is wanted. EddieHugh (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to withdraw this now there are references. Rathfelder (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2021 (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 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not in Rennick's Bullitt County directory, and his index calls it a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My
  WP:BEFORE turned up only the kind of references already discussed above. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete looks like yet another mass-produced junk article about some random place that happened to appear in a US government survey. Dronebogus (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Was deleted in 2008 and there is still nothing to suggest notability about this software. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: software was not notable when it was in date - what makes it notable 15 years later ~RAM (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Barely found anything about the language. Easily fails
  WP:NSOFT. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per the above.
  talk) 15:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not notable, fails both
  WP:NSOFT.Less Unless (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2021 (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.

Reaper's Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I wasn't able to find anything either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  Deoxy99: I created this article and feel that, while it is a niche subject, it still deserves to have a page. According to criteria #5 of WP:BOOKCRIT, books can have an individual page if "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Onision, while hardly a historical figure is notorious online. His own article is evidence of this. His books are also notorious as well, which is why the reviews/summaries of them are so popular. They are a good insight into Onision's mind, but other than long YouTube videos there isn't a way to get information on the plot, characters, or themes. And so I decided that creating this page would be a good way to let people know a little more about the book, and therefore Onision himself. If some of the references are a problem then the reference section can be deleted, but without a plot summary here there is no easy place to get an idea of what the book is like. JCTullos (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Moving this over from the AfD talk page. I'm going to respond with the same note I did on the others: Notoriety is not the same as being historically significant. Historical significance requires that the individual be the subject of study in academic and scholarly sources and generally covered to the point where they're a household name. In other words, the expectation is that if someone is this notable, then there will be coverage for their works as well. There are very few people who have met this criteria and the ones who do are people like say, Shakespeare, Stephen King, or Jane Austen. This notability guideline is pretty much expected to cover some of those more minor works like short stories, poems, or essays that wouldn't gain a ton of coverage like their larger, more heavily covered novels or plays might - but would still gain a decent level of coverage. Onision has not received that level of coverage or attention and may never gain that level. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also of note is that Goodreads coverage does not count towards notability since anyone can leave a review there. As such, any reviews on social media type sites of this nature or on e-commerce sites like Amazon will not count towards notability. Coverage of those reviews might, but the reviews themselves will not. The types of reviews that would count would be reviews in newspapers and the like. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability in the article, References do not support notability, my google did not find anything. Jeepday (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2021 (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 and redirect to Onision#Bibliography. Sandstein 10:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I hate you (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find coverage to justify this passing NBOOK. The only mention I could find was this, which would not be enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  Deoxy99: I created this article and feel that, while it is a niche subject, it still deserves to have a page. According to criteria #5 of WP:BOOKCRIT, books can have an individual page if "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Onision, while hardly a historical figure is notorious online. His own article is evidence of this. His books are also notorious as well, which is why the reviews/summaries of them are so popular. They are a good insight into Onision's mind, but other than long YouTube videos there isn't a way to get information on the plot, characters, or themes. And so I decided that creating this page would be a good way to let people know a little more about the book, and therefore Onision himself. If some of the references are a problem then the reference section can be deleted, but without a plot summary here there is no easy place to get an idea of what the book is like. JCTullos (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Moving this over from the AfD talk page. I'm going to respond with the same note I did on the others: Notoriety is not the same as being historically significant. Historical significance requires that the individual be the subject of study in academic and scholarly sources and generally covered to the point where they're a household name. In other words, the expectation is that if someone is this notable, then there will be coverage for their works as well. There are very few people who have met this criteria and the ones who do are people like say, Shakespeare, Stephen King, or Jane Austen. This notability guideline is pretty much expected to cover some of those more minor works like short stories, poems, or essays that wouldn't gain a ton of coverage like their larger, more heavily covered novels or plays might - but would still gain a decent level of coverage. Onision has not received that level of coverage or attention and may never gain that level. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:RS - there are exactly zero articles or reviews about this book in any newspaper of record. Bearian (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No indication of notability in the article, References do not support notability, my google did not find anything. (same as "Reaper's Creek") Jeepday (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Onision - not independently notable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stones to Abbigale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only coverage I found was this, which isn't enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  Deoxy99: I created this article and feel that, while it is a niche subject, it still deserves to have a page. According to criteria #5 of WP:BOOKCRIT, books can have an individual page if "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Onision, while hardly a historical figure is notorious online. His own article is evidence of this. His books are also notorious as well, which is why the reviews/summaries of them are so popular. They are a good insight into Onision's mind, but other than long YouTube videos there isn't a way to get information on the plot, characters, or themes. And so I decided that creating this page would be a good way to let people know a little more about the book, and therefore Onision himself. If some of the references are a problem then the reference section can be deleted, but without a plot summary here there is no easy place to get an idea of what the book is like. JCTullos (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've moved this from the talk page. In response: Notoriety is not the same as being historically significant. Historical significance requires that the individual be the subject of study in academic and scholarly sources and generally covered to the point where they're a household name. In other words, the expectation is that if someone is this notable, then there will be coverage for their works as well. There are very few people who have met this criteria and the ones who do are people like say, Shakespeare, Stephen King, or Jane Austen. This notability guideline is pretty much expected to cover some of those more minor works like short stories, poems, or essays that wouldn't gain a ton of coverage like their larger, more heavily covered novels or plays might - but would still gain a decent level of coverage. Onision has not received that level of coverage or attention and may never gain that level. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Onision - not independently notable; can't find coverage in reliable, independent sources; just blogs and YouTube videos and the like Spiderone 20:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same as the other two, no evidence of notability in the article or found on google. I don't see a need for a redirect. Once the clean up is done there are no incoming links, and no reasonable reason for any to be looking on here for the article. Jeepday (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram Mastal (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 actor with no indication of satisfying either

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added other works and making edits to enhance the page. I would be great if I get some suggestion or guidance from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix0910 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subjects path to notability is via
  WP:NOTJUSTYET Jeepday (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2021 (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 Gold Base. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Here we have a bit of a problem. All evidence indicates that this was a hot springs resort, not a town. The problem is the last sentence of the article: "Gold Base, the international headquarters of the Church of Scientology, is located near Gilman Hot Springs." As the Gold Base article states, it and the former resort property are one and the same: it was purchased lock, stock, and barrel in 1978. My impression, regardless of the "History" section on the Sciento0logy facility, is that the resort wasn't terribly notable: I suspect the level of coverage is inherited from Scientology investigations. If people think otherwise, then the resort should have its own article and presumably this would redirect to that. I;m not keen on having this article redirect to Gold Base. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Gold Base. The resort is not so super notable that having a seperate article on its time before being converted to Gold Base makes sense. One thing, one article applies here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge selectively to Gold Base. Article does not meet GNG SIGCOV on its own, but selectively merging souced content to the appropriate place on the target article will improve the target article and make the content more visible and less fragmented for readers.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   13:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge the non-duplicative content to Gold Base. With the shared history, it's best to have it all in a single place. Hog Farm _Talk 18:14, 20 January 2021 (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. Whether to create a redirect to Reasonable accommodation is up to editors, but this doesn't strike me as an obvious search term for that concept. Sandstein 10:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Do not believe article meets the

Could not find any info on Google Search/Books/News/News archive.

No consensus among editors as to whether this is a real movement, as per page created by Benny Hutchinson, or a fictional one for an exhibition, as per edits from Iocheaira, with no citations for either POV. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability. More already at Justin Edgar. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how edits work, so apologies if this is the wrong way to go about this. The artist set up the wikipedia page to promote the exhibiton as real, as per the art piece. The edits done to state it is fictional were done by me and my friends who found proof it was fake, and wanted to be able to inform people so they did not believe it as we initially did. I think there is value in the site staying up claiming it is fake as the advertising for it sponsored on social media was particularly harmful and contained lots of ableist slurs (under the guise of being a real 90's news report - it was not). Once again, I'm not sure how this works but I can send any proof if needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.148.135.75 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comment, this is helpful context. My interest in this article is also the concern about harm of mis/disinformation. Is the proof you found publicly available from a reliable source (eg. newspaper?). We can't include original research on Wikipedia, and please don't make public any private information, but if we can provide a citation that categorically says something either way that could provide a way forward. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is a link to an interview with Edgar about the project. He talks about creating the Reasonable Adjustment Movement for the purposes of his exhibition around the 16 minute mark. This WP page was a deliberate attempt to mislead people into thinking the movement was real, probably, as Roger points out below, to advertise the exhibition. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.8.87 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an attempt to abuse WP to advertise an art exhibition. (See below) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete YouTube is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes youtube is not a reliable source and it looks as though the original sources have been deleted by someone, perhaps a prankster? I suggest this is reinstated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benny Hutchinson (talk • contribs) 19:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That particular Youtube video is reliable per

• Thanks
  WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Jonathan Deamer those "additional sources" do not actually exist, they are part of the whole fiction. The Youtube video that you reject is literally the artist himself explaining that it is fiction that he made up. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Roger - I don't reject the YouTube video, I added it to the article in the first place after it was mentioned above :) I suspect the same as you RE: those additional sources. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Jonathan Deamer the article does not currently say that it is fictional, which the video conclusively proves. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• PLEASE do not delete this page - it is vital for showing people that this is fictional. People believe this is real and are distressed about it.

I'm trying to edit the article to reflect this but I would really appreciate some help. The Bedford Sentinel is not a newspaper, it is a sculpture. The West London Obsever was a paper that finished in 1957. The Salford Mail simply does not exist. Squitchtweak (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation - based on the above discussion, I now believe this should be turned into a disambiguation page. It should highlight that the group is fictional, and point readers to two places, 1) the relevant section of Justin Edgar, and 2) the Reasonable accommodation article, as this concept is referred to in the Equality Act 2010 as "reasonable adjustment". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a simple redirect to reasonable accommodation is sufficient as this article's subject does not come close to even meet the most lenient interpretation of notability. If the exhibition manages to re-open after the current pandemic and then becomes properly notable as a work of art we can reconsider our options. Right now it doesn't even rate a disambiguation link. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair Roger. My concern was the above comment that having something here is "is vital for showing people that this is fictional", and that this does sound valuable. But I know Wikipedia can't debunk every non-notable falsehood! On that basis, redirect. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is notable as it's been shown in multiple prominent galleries and caused controversy and noatable hoaxing. There is plenty to be written on it's construction and controversy Squitchtweak (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - some sourcing from ArtsHub Australia, but this does not create notability by itself. A lot of primary sourcing (or what appears to be primary). There are also citations to fake newspapers.. and the article goes on to talk about how those newspapers are fake, citing to the Wikipedia page's own edit history... altogether, very confusing. So, is it a hoax, or is the article about hoax? Either way, I think it fails notability guidelines. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add - Per discussion above, a redirect at Reasonable accommodation can be created if it is a reasonable search term, but this page, with caps, serves no independent purpose. And a redirect may come with a retention of the page history, which would not serve a proper purpose. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:38, 19 January 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Borden Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is on a New York art gallery;

Note: I found sources establishing notability for Janet Borden as an artist. I have copied a line about the gallery to that new article. I think she's the notable topic (by our standard) and this one, Janet Borden Inc., can be safely redirected. Possibly (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, are you sure? None of the sources at Janet Borden say she's an artist. It's a hard case to make that the person is notable but the business is not, when they are so closely connected. I don't see that Borden is notable for anything except as a gallerist. I'd support renaming and keeping this page as a redirect. Vexations (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: She's a photographer herself with two works in permanent collections?Possibly (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK it seems likely I have this wrong about her being an artist. But: the Smithsonian did have her in the list of artists in their collection! Vexations, can you confirm the facts? Possibly (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, Yeah, it's not very clear. The work on https://americanart.si.edu/artist/janet-borden-6597 is by Mark Cohen, from a portfolion published by Borden. https://collections.eastman.org/objects/550523/janet-borden is portrait of Borden, by photographer JoAnn Verburg. Vexations (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I nominated Janet Borden for CSD. I don't see either as being notable now. Possibly (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep it is hard to separate the artist and the company, but number 95 on this list https://books.google.com/books?id=xGCjXTVpv-0C&pg=PA85&dq=%22Janet+Borden+Inc.%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0wavx94LuAhUQ1lkKHVK0DCoQ6AEwAnoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=%22Janet%20Borden%20Inc.%22%20-wikipedia&f=false combined with several google book hits, make me lean keep. The article could be improved, my google results suggest the things that meet
  WP:GNG are not well documented in the article. Jeepday (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Jeepday, please note that Borden is NOT an artist. As an aside, I thought it was interesting that we don't have an article on the #4 on that list: Maria Morris Hambourg, the #7, Weston Naef or the#18, Rick Wester. We seem to be better at wring biographic articles on photographers than on curators and gallerists. Vexations (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  such a factor is not determinative. Bearian (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete I have found several mentions, but they are passing. There's no significant coverage. Less Unless (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2021 (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 Tutoring. Sandstein 10:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

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

I prodded this with "No evidence this occupation/job/position is

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Redirecting to
  WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The subject here is the role of the tutor in a college where it is usually a formal title. The exact duties and responsibilities will vary, depending on the institution and its use of the tutorial system. My own experience was at Cambridge University where, as the article explains, a student has both a Director of Studies, who is a subject-matter expert in the student's faculty, while the Tutor is responsible for other aspects of the student's life. Other institutions may combine the roles. Anyway, the topic is notable as it is easy to find sources including:

1. The role of the College Tutor
2. The personal tutor–student relationship: student expectations and experiences of personal tutoring in higher education
3. Student and Tutor Perceptions of the Role of the Tutor in a Sixth Form College
4. The role of the tutor in a college of further education
5. The role of personal tutor in nurse education: towards an understanding of practice in a college of nursing and midwifery
6. The changing role of the college tutor in support of trainee teachers
7. Tutors and Teaching

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Davidson, perhaps a different disambig would be a good start. With the current (education) disambiguator it makes me think it's just a general tutor, ie. someone that helps you with your homework. Maybe changing it to (higher education) would help to distinguish the difference, as I think leaving it at education encompasses primary & secondary education as well, which this article doesn't apply. ~RAM (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's obviously a lot that can be done to improve this weak stub and so
  WP:INSPECTOR. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You fail to address the issue of why we need separate articles about tutor and tutoring.
  WP:POVFORK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Nonsense. We have different pages for teachers and teaching, for example. They are not the same thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And oh, your links are wrong. Teaching redirects to education. I think it is reasonable to have a separate article on the major profession of a teacher. But frankly tutor might well benefit from being merged there anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to tutoring: Agree with the nom. A redirect to tutoring page would be an appropriate disposition. ~RAM (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to
  Tutor. No need for a separate article. And all tutors are involved with education, so a pointless disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge and redirect; while this is definitely a distinct concept, there is not enough material here (and not enough references) to warrant it being a distinct article. And it's not like they overlap. jp×g 05:39, 18 January 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Maya 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)

Article does not have

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NALBUMS. Not enough material for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• in fact, Paci Dalò and Scanner are two of the pioneers in the electronic music and this collaborative album needs to be improve and notable 9.01.2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.77.117.222 (talk • contribs) 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Your claim is original research; and if you think the article can be improved, please feel free to do so. HĐ (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per
  WP:XY. Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I assume the IP above is the article creator Miro070520, whose edits to Wikipedia have been mostly related to Roberto Paci Dalò, and who has created articles of dubious notability for other albums by this artist. It's true that Dalò and Rimbaud (Scanner) are considered at the forefront of experimental electronic music, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their albums pass WP:NALBUM themselves – here the review in Blow Up magazine seems to be the only reliable source available. I can't find anything about Dalò in the archives of The Wire, which is the British magazine most likely to have covered him. Richard3120 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Nur Alam Chowdhury (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 union politician (Unions are the smallest rural administrative and local government units in Bangladesh), fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone is a Union politician doesn't mean they are non-notable. For many countries, there are Wiki pages for notable local community leaders and councillors, especially if they have had a great impact. You are also incorrect, Unions are not the smallest rural administrative and local government units in Bangladesh, they are further divided into Wards (and then villages). SalamAlayka (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usually local politicians like Union politician aren't notable, see

WP:RS please. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete politicians at the local level are gnerally not notable. We have a lot of crufty articles at this level that need to go but have not. We should not allow the fact that we poorly regulate the creation of articles on this level and fail to enforce our own guidelines justify keeping articles on clearly non-notable people at this level and further ignoring our own guidelines. Wikipedia is still paying for the original sins of the 2001-2006 time period and having virtually no limits to what sort of articles were created. For example earlier today I nominated for deletion an article that had existed since 2005 and has 0 sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person is genuinely notable. He is not only a local politician, but a nationally awarded one and was also director of banks, boards and many other organisations. He is a historical figure.SalamAlayka (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already said Best Chairman isn’t notable award. And bank may be notable but no, director of bank isn’t automatically notable. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk)

• Delete. Local politicians are not notable.~Yahya (✉) • 19:02, 15 January 2021 (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.

National Case Management Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability, given how Case Management Society of America was deleted it's clear this association is not notable either. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:04, 14 January 2021 (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. Trending towards keep. Sandstein 10:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Earle Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Pretty thin claim to notability. A BLM activist who filmed inside the capitol during the storming. Not quite BLP1E as some other charges relating to BLM protests and he runs a small activist group. A reasonable quantity of press coverage, much seems to come from right-leaning sources amplifying his importance. His importance is perhaps shown by his funding page which has reached the grand total of £5 out of a £2000 target.[1] and 3000 Twitter followers.[2][3]. When we look at what he has actually done its: failed to make the Olympic squad, attended a BLM protest where another protestor shot someone and was charged for damaging a vehicle; holding a one-man armed protest in Utah; took a lot of videos on the 6th and managed to film the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, got arrested alongside 100's of others. Salix alba (talk): 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Salix alba (talk): 20:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think what would be more important than the number of Twitter followers someone has is how often reliable sources report on them, and Sullivan has been interviewed dozens of times by reliable publications throughout 2020-2021 for his activism and reporting. As far as the 5/2000 dollars on "BuyMeACoffee.com" given that this is a monthly goal I expect the total donation quantity resets at some unspecified rollover period? No idea why you cited that coffee slush fund (is that something you can only buy drinks with?) when his GoFundMe at com/f/johnsullivanlegalaidfund raised $1,534 in merely a month. You can also see ANOTHER one at com/f/Insurgencesdefensefund that raised $375. I'm not sure we should rely on our original research to get a conclusive picture of the total sum of donations this activist has received as he appears to simultaneously run an unknown quantity of discrete fundraising efforts. WakandaQT (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm leaning more toward keep. I just went to Google News and searched for his name and it came back with over eleven million results and I expect that number to rise. So I think there's notability. Progressingamerica (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOLOL, it's only 1,530 in GNews for "John Earle Sullivan", this is a very common name...
    WP:LOTSOFGHITS. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy draftify Too soon right now, per
  WP:BLP1E. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • BLP1E does not apply, he's notable for more than a single event. Jan 2021 is just the most recent one: there's June 2020 and July 2020 protests covered for him too, plus the coverage of his speed-skating tryouts by KSL-TV in Jan 2018. WakandaQT (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is absolutely not notable for appearing at the previous protests. He's absolutely not notable for being within the coverage of the many people who participated in the skating trials. Minor non-notable interview + minor non-notable tryout + 1E news != notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • How many of the other skaters got commercial deals with Uber though? WakandaQT (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gimme a break, if we had an article about every person featured in some sort of corporate advertising campaign.... Non-notable commercial appearance + non-notable tryout + 1E news != notability. He's either notable for this crime, and this is a minor background fact, or he's not. I stand that with scores of people being arrested in the past week and covered in the news, he is not individually notable but mention in another article is welcome. Reywas92^Talk 00:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even the Rolling Stone article about his arrest at https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-jayden-x-maga-riot-interview-1112949/ shows that? Or the articles about his activism on two separate instances the preceding year? WakandaQT (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Historians will eventually try to maintain a list of all the people who stormed the building. There should probably be a Wikipedia article about that. Each entry in the list could have a small bio and include a description of the things the person did once inside. The currently discussed article could be merged into that list if it cannot survive on its own. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is already coverage of "notable arrests and charges" in the sub-article

WP:BLPCRIME though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy delete - this "activist" is not notable for attending any of the events listed in the current article, not even the
  WP:BLP1E are also reasons to delete. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 01:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. There's
  WP:SIGCOV: see the Intercept, Rolling Stone, Gehrke's article. I think there was perhaps a weak argument for an article before, but the most recent event makes it a very strong case. tedder (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for the reasons stated above. The recent additions make it clear this is not someone notable for a single event only. --
  talk) 01:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The nom mentions it's not quite BLP1E, I'd say it's no even close; he was covered prior to January 6, and the coverage since references that coverage, noting patterns in his interactions with various groups. Also from the nom, "A reasonable quantity of press coverage, much seems to come from right-leaning sources amplifying his importance." This is IMO a reason in favor of having Wikipedia coverage: When people read about him in sources of varying quality, they should be able to get context by reading a Wikipedia article that places their claims in context, and points to the best sources. All that said, the article does appear longer than it needs to be. This needn't be an exhaustive record of his work, but rather a guide to finding the sources that go into more detail. So I'd be fine with a major cut of the size of the article, and some rethinking of which pieces belong here. None of that need occur in an AFD discussion though. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He has notability in Chinese news as well. And as someone stated above, he was also covered prior to January 6. So I think there is sufficient notability. Furthermore,
  WP:BLP1E suggests avoiding having an article "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." And the Capitol incident is significant and he agitated violence in the Capitol. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. He's getting national press coverage, and not just in conservative media (not that such bias would be disqualifying). Here's a full-story profile in the Washington Post. Just because almost no one wants to give him money doesn't make him any less notable; that seems to be more a function of disapproving of his actions. -- Beland (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He doesn't seem to be notable for pre-1/6 activities or meet
  WP:TENYEARTEST.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, and I feel the need to reiterate my suspicion people don't read
  WP:BLP1E, because he passes as well as anyone. I suspect failure of the ten-year test would require nuclear holocaust between now and 2031 such as to make every other issue pale in comparison; recentism is an issue (not to be confused with "this will be a footnote in a decade"!), mostly by way of many-not-all of his events being in fact recent, and I expect the matter to settle naturally as we get increasingly far from blast radius. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep measures up to GNG as per copious sources. Geo Swan (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable activist is a glaring case of
  talk 23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as
  WP:BLP1E does not apply in this case with point 2 and possibly point 3. There are alot of sources that covered Sullivan's involvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A lot of media mention Sullivan including many conspiracy theory sites (e.g.
  2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol was covertly created by Antifa, I came here to read facts about him. People rely on Wikipedia to provide these facts, if this article wasn't here they might believe conspiracy theory media. 51.6.235.58 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2021 (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. Slightly early close as there are questions about the nomination and zero chance this would be deleted. StarM 17:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He passes
  WP:NPOL, as he has been a member of a legislative body at the national level. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Obviously passes
  Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - although
  consensus can change, it's well-established that parliamentarians are automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Clearly and obviously passes
  WP:TROUT for you! Spleodrach (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep and please take action against the nominator: The nominator is just simply nominating the articles for deletion. He is not following
  WP:Before. Please see these two discussions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guruvayur_Padmanabhan and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kongad_Kuttisankaran#Kongad_Kuttisankaran . Both are bad nominations along with this one. I request the administrator to take action against the nominator. Because he has been warned 4 times, but is not stopping this action. Thankyou Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Article does need some referencing improvement, so by all means tag it for {{
  WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aikatsu Planet! characters (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 series has only aired TWO episodes. The main article is small and doesn't need to be split into separate articles. Additionally, this list fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you start an AFD instead of dealing with this through normal discussion and editing? There has been zero talk page activity on either this or the parent article. We need to stop resorting to a deletion forum with a time limit when we're dealing just with questions of how to organize content across multiple articles, whether to split subtopics, or what level of detail is appropriate for a given subject. See
  WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 20:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - I agree that this is an unnecessary for for something just started in December, but this would at least give time and address the concerns raised by postdlf above. It probably should have started in draft space anyway in order to start the potential discussion mentioned above. -2pou (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The nom pretty much covers it. Darkknight2149 01:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Link20XX (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Elephants don’t meet notability guidelines here. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The elephant is highly notable and has more than enough coverage from reliable sources and I would strongly discourage anyone from !voting delete before we've had anyone here who speaks malayalam other than me 06:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmorwiki: As the article creator you are usually expected to vote keep. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject is a notable figure in
  WP:GNG. BestwishesPoppified ^talk 05:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I doubt that proper steps are not followed here while nominating an article for deletion. Between this edit [4] and this edit [5], the nominator only took 2 minutes for nominating. The user hasnt done proper
  WP:Before before doing the nomination. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It's entirely possible that the nominator did a BEFORE search before creating this AfD. Edits are quite close together but that, in itself, isn't evidence that suggests that one wasn't done. Spiderone 15:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has also nominated another stub article for deletion where he took only 1 minute. He also blindly says Elephants don’t meet notability guidelines here. Wikipedias notability criteria clearly says a topic is notable to have its own standalone article if it has enough coverage from multiple sources. Here the elephant is covered in multiple independent sources. I request the nominator to clarify what he meant by elephants not notable here. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - References on the page show
  WP:GNG is met. Category:Elephants and its 17 sub-categories would suggest that elephants can be notable. --John B123 (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, passing
  WP:GNG Spiderone 18:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, evidence of notability has been provided. Suggest some clean-up for tone but article is fine otherwise. StarM 14:27, 21 January 2021 (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 Monty Don. Sandstein 10:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

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

Dogs usually don’t meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they don't. This one certainly does. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Had the dog been an animal actor it’d be a different story. Trillfendi (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I assume you are aware of the huge public following this dog had on UK television. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most people don't usually meet the guidelines but that doesn't mean we delete all articles about people. This particular dog is notable and so we have an article about this particular dog, just as we have many articles about other dogs. We even had an article about a particular tree on the main page yesterday. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then redirect with/to Monty Don. Not independently notable. Nigej (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  cats, trees, hedges, fictional insects.... They all go together. Whether buried in Monty Don's Longmeadow garden or not. You know it makes sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC) p.s. 2,545 views so far[reply
  ]
• Keep/Merge - The fact that its a dog has no bearing on notability if there are sources covering him, and this dog certainly seems to have ample coverage. I'm a bit torn between keeping it as a stand alone article or merging it to the wider coverage on Monty Don, but straight deletion would definitely not be appropriate here. Rorshacma (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The arguments below have swayed me towards the opinion that a Merger would be the better way to organize the information here, so I am updating my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Agree with you there.
    WP:N says that passing GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." which seem to me to be the basic issue here. Nigej (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep/Merge: I would say its a bad nomination. On going through the edit history of the nominator, I found that he hasnt done any
  WP:Before before nominating for deletion. For some edits, he just only took 2 minutes. It clearly indicates the lack of guidelines followed here. Kashmorwiki (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

We are here to discuss the notability of Nigel the dog not to discuss the nominator Spiderone 18:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Merge to Monty Don: The notability for the subject is completely meshed with the target. Not everything needs a stand alone article. This content will improve the target article and an unnecessary split will just fragment the content for no reason to the detriment of the reader.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   14:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - primarily with the Monty Don article. Nigel the dog certainly had a public profile, but it was not one that was independent of Monty Don. People looking for information on Nigel would probably expect to find it in Monty Don's article as he was his owner. Equally I think it is reasonable to expect the Monty Don article to cover his association with Nigel, particularly as it is clear he was an important companion to Monty. Not sure that a redirect is needed as I can't see Nigel (dog) being something someone would enter. It might also be worth mentioning Nigel in the [Gardeners' World]] article which he does not seem to currently be mentioned on. Dunarc (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - into the Monty Don article. William Harris (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Monty Don per Timothy. Cavalryman (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Note - Shep (British dog).Just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Point taken, and I am a dog person, but I still think Merge into Monty Don is the best answer here. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I agree with the merge arguments Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. Not enough about the dog, most of it is highly related to the owner. Seems to fail
  WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 22 January 2021 (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.

Jesse Aliganga (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 clear case of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:SOLDIER; simply being killed in an attack does not mean one played an important part. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Hawkeye and Mztourist.Intothatdarkness 20:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with all above. Peter303x (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above comments. Zawed (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, although a redirect to 1998 United States embassy bombings should be considered by the closing sysop. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:GNG. --ERAMnc 13:02, 16 January 2021 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Nanchang mass suicide protest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An obvious hoax. The title of the article clearly says this event was based on "mass suicide", but there is no evidence this was the case if one traces the reliable sources (if any). Normchou ^💬 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Normchou ^💬 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per
  WP:NOTNEWS, local internet hoaxes are not worthy of an article. Jumpytoo Talk 03:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The article itself says that "Mr Jiang (蔣) and his son were responsible for spreading the false suicide news", so even the article itself calls its own validity into question. Also per the reasoning of Spiderone and Normchou. PubSyr 🌲^C. 🐦^T. 12:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable about this event.
  WP:NOTNEWS. JayJay^{What did I do?} 08:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Nothing had happened. STSC (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2021 (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.

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

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

Resume on Wikipedia. The page cites the subject's linkedin and angel.co pages, and a number of sources that are about other things. The Politico article names him only to attribute quotes, and the New York Times article is a list of names without commentary on him. Lacks coverage in

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A
  Talk) 18:14, 14 January 2021 (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.

Hyperlinked (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 reliable sources besides passing mention in the LA times. Seems to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Barely found anything about the show. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 January 2021 (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.

INtelligent Data Understanding System (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 declined on the grounds that sources were found to confirm it exists. It does indeed. However, these are not independent and I can find no evidence this is a notable initiative. StarM 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. StarM 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tagged for notability since the tail end of 2009. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:48, 14 January 2021 (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.

KM. Annamalai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

In general fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't even know what notability criterion this guy is supposed to meet. Certainly not NPROF, as he's not a professor, and I couldn't find any publications by him in Scopus so NACADEMIC also fails. Seems extremely non-notable. JoelleJay (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2021 (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.

Tunedly.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional page with no evidence of notability. The few cited sources that are actually about the company are not substantial coverage (JamSphere and Tech.co both only point to the company's existence and their coverage may not be independent). The page was moved from the draft namespace by the author citing the AfC help desk, but the only discussion of the article there is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2020_November_16#07:59:20,_16_November_2020_review_of_draft_by_Yiyeant which does not indicate approval. FalconK (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: There are sufficient resources in several of the references to give this page notability. However, the page needs significant improvement. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 11:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Notability is created through other articles such as https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9341275/how-music-companies-giving-back-during-coronavirus-pandemic/, https://siliconprairienews.com/2017/09/capital-innovators-announces-fall-2017-accelerator-class/, https://www.billboard.com/index.php/articles/business/8275790/executive-turntable-tunein-coalition-agency-tunedly-advisory-board, https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8498623/executive-turntable-warner-chappell-downtown/, https://musicmecca.org/music-business-spotlight-online-recording-publishing-platform-tunedly/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.141.80.6 (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. Not ready for prime time. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. FalconK's nomination says "Promotional page with no evidence of notability", and that just about sums it up. Contrary to what Whiteguru and the IP editor have said, neither the sources cited in the article nor the links given by the IP editor go anywhere towards showing notability. They include a lot of pages with just brief mentions of Tunedly, mere announcements of appointments or other business moves, unambiguously promotional or otherwise non-independent sources, and so on. Most of them don't even look remotely like substantial coverage in reliable independent sources, and the few that at first glance look as though they may be, turn out on closer examination not to be. (For example, looking one of them which at first looked as though it might be useful I found that half way down the page it referred to Tunedly as "we". I then discovered other reasons why it wasn't an acceptable source.)

There is clearly consensus that the page should not remain as an article, and the only point open to question is whether it should be draftified or simply deleted. Draftification is fine for an article that has too many faults to be acceptable as an article in its present state but is on a notable topic, but here we are dealing with a topic with no evidence of notability, so there is no justification for draftifying the article. JBW (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per above. Needs some work, but I can see this being an article. jp×g 06:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as UPE spam. Blablubbs|talk 15:25, 21 January 2021 (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. Deletion arguments referenced policy, the only keep argument did not. Daniel (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Christian School (Kelowna) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was kept at AFD in 2012 under the then-existing consensus that K-12 schools were presumptively notable. In 2017, that consensus was reversed: schools must now satisfy

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete the sourcing is no where near what we expect for an organization. To be fail a lot of our high school articles have been grandfathered in under the old system, but since Wikipedia is not a reliable source, we should not grandfather in any articles. All the more so because our early inclusion criteria were virtually non-existent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the community where this school is located has a number of schools with articles; removing just this one and leaving the others is inappropriate when notability level are similar: Kelowna#Education--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Due to it lacking the sourcing needed to be notable. Also, not sure what Epiphyllumlover is talking about, but it sounds a lot like
  WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If this schools is non-notable, than neither are the other schools in this community. The most obvious solution is to make an article for all of the schools and merge it in. Or just leave them all alone. But to single out one to delete makes no sense.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. lacks SIGCOV from IS RS to pass ORGCRIT. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep and merging lots of non-notable articles into one big non-notable article will not improve the situation.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   13:46, 18 January 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny and the Spoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm just not sure this group is really notable. Sourcing is either mentions in local alternative press or reviews from blogs and so forth. (and youtube and the band's own website, which seems to be defunct) Beeblebrox (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I share the same concern about the
  local coverage that the band has, but I also found https://www.wvxu.org/post/shiny-and-spoon-box-bullets#stream/0 and https://www.citybeat.com/music/music-feature/article/13006795/banded-together . Perhaps rescuing the sources in the article will prove useful as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Not sure I follow your logic. WVXU is a local station and the piece you cited identifies itself a s local music blog, City Beat is the local alternative press I referred to in my nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on the available info they don't meet
  WP:BAND criteria. The award they won is non-notable, since it doesn't have a Wiki page. Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Despite popular belief, every subject has to be notable according to the basic notability guideline (
  Talk) 18:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Yes they received some local newspaper coverage which could help their case, but per #7 at
  WP:NBAND requirements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 18 January 2021 (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.

Type 85 submachine gun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Content is a paraphrase of https://modernfirearms.net/en/submachine-guns/china-submachine-guns/tip-85-eng/ without any other refs or indication of notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk | contribs) 06:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll dump a few here: [6], [7], [8], [9]. Perhaps the three types could be merged into a single article?

talk) 07:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I have no strong opinion on merging vs deleting vs fixing the article.

talk | contribs) 07:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - quick search, and it looks like there are a number of sources supporting the subject of this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google News results suggest sufficient notability. imv VocalIndia (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Needs improvement. STSC (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrin Stellakis (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 pageant titleholder. Does not pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Smitty Werben 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep as passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants) as the winner of the United States Miss Earth 2016 which is a national qualifier for one of the big four pageants, as confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

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

• Delete the above suggested criteria were specifically rejected as a guide to notability. This article does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 18:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not pass Wikipedia's basic notability guideline (
  Talk) 18:27, 14 January 2021 (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. Randykitty (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Nutcracker Christmas (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 television film, does not have significant coverage by independent reliable sources, per

Agree OswaldClara (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was nominated for Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Children's Programs in 2016. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We only have so much time in life so I don't understand why some people choose to spend all of their time on Wikipedia contemptuously destroying other people's work instead of doing something productive. --Nicholas0 (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give a reason for keeping? Because this is not one. BOVINEBOY2008 01:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With that logic we should scrap AfD and the PROD and CSD processes. Deletion is a necessary evil. SK2242 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Donaldd23.
  matt91486 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]