Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 15

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep and revert to revision from 25 June 2020. There is clear consensus that the article in its current format has serious issues, and something needs to be done. There is general consensus that the version from 25 June 2020 is not perfect, but better than the present. So, reverting per consensus, but note that further discussion on the talk page can modify this decision/the article/etc. for the better as required - and if possible, this happening would be ideal. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supercapitalism

Supercapitalism (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 short: this is a

A redirect to Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life is the obvious solution, since that's the most significant and relevant topic, and the article on that book is the proper place to discuss Robert Reich's ideas. We're here at AfD because when I boldly made that redirect I ran into pushback. Reich's supercapitalism is a late stage of capitalism that begins after 1970s and is characterized by hyper-competition, maximum consumer choice, maximum access to global markets both as consumers and investors due to the rise of global corporations like Wal-Mart and giant mutual funds and pension funds.

The far less notable prior usage of the term supercapitalism aka "inhuman capitalism" by

• Comment Weak keep and revert to version as of 25 June 2020 I do want to note that this article was originally solely about the concept in Italian Fascism, as a complementary page to
  WP:BUNDLEd into this AFD, since the subject is so similar. If we do merge Mussolini's conception somewhere else, i suggest that this article either be turned into a disambiguation page for the 2 concepts or that a hatnote be added to Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life. Alternatively, we could make this article true to its origins and make it solely about Mussolini's conception - removing the content relating to Robert Reich and adding a hatnote on this article to Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life instead. Koopinator (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  On second thought, i personally prefer reverting to make this article solely about the concept in Italian fascism, so i guess i'll change this to "weak keep". I think merge-ability/lack of notability is a legitimate caveat, however. Koopinator (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My issue with that is that heroic capitalism makes no sense without understanding the stages the fascists say came before, and "inhuman capitalism" makes no sense out of context of heroic capitalism. If we want an article on that, it needs to be about all these stages, not a string of stubs that treat them in isolation. So not

  WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: simply look up supercapitalism and, excluding weak google hits, social media, and this very Wikipedia article, instead looking only at quality, reliable sources, they are overwhelmingly about Reich's supercapitalism, because the other one is only of historical relevance. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Revert this is blatant
  π, ν) 22:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Maybe @

π, ν) 22:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you have that, you know, diff? Suspense is killing me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's the same diff that Kooptinator linked? That version may have issues, but

π, ν) 03:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I don't know why it didn't make sense to me before as to which link you meant. Thanks clarifying.

That version appears better at first glance but I think we need to take a close look at the way the citations are used. All of them are

primary sources, words Mussolini & his pals wrote, yet the article has a layer of analysis of what those words mean that isn't in the primary text. All of which is a way of begging the question of the justification for such an article existing: do we have secondary sources to justify an article? The opinions about what the Italian Fascists believed expressed in that version need secondary sources. If we don't have them, then we can't justify this article because those opinions violate the no original research policy. Which leads back to my point that there is little interest in this topic, demonstrated by the lack of secondary sources. It deserves a couple sentences, maybe a paragraph, in a broader article: "yep, this is what those guys thought, but few care any more so it's not worth saying much about". If someone found sufficient secondary sources, I would be proven wrong. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I did a Google Books search and i found 2 secondary sources.[1]^[2] Koopinator (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert per Kooptinator, but with the see also link on the current version. That is a clear article on a concept that existed historically. Whether Reich's book is about the same thing or not is not within my knowledge; I suspect not. The article on the book reads like a publisher's blurb, but it is probably the best that we will get on a topic with the same name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite with cleanup. Contains interesting ideas about capitalism with some good citations, but inadequacies need to be fixed as pointed out by the users above. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:27, 12 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.

Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt controversy (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 single aspect of the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete into
  2021 storming of the United States Capitol. No need for a separate page but it is significant enough story that grabbed the world news. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Yoninah (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete at most worthy of a single line in an article discussing the protestors. --Salix alba (talk): 18:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like another aspect of the storming that is
  WP:NOTNEWS. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: not every particularity of the Capitol protest needs to have its own article. ... discospinster _talk 23:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with
  Robert Keith Packer (either Merge into the controversy article, or into the biographical article). Banana Republic (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete per
  wanna talk? 01:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and delete into
  2021 storming of the United States Capitol would be the best solution.TH1980 (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete as there is no controversy over whether the shirt is offensive or what it means. If there isn't a sentence or two in the article over specifically antisemitic slogans worn at the Capitol invasion, they can be added, but there's no need for a redirect and certainly no need to include any of the ostentatious padding which this article represents. Mangoe (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete
  WP:NOTNEWS Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Falls under
  WP:NOTNEWS.Less Unless (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge the content to
  WP:UNDUE in the main 2021 storming article so a merge to the event article would cut this content. We should keep it in some form, and I prefer the biography to an event article. In the biography deletion discussion I argued that this event is part of three stories: the Capitol storm, the state of Antisemitism, and sales policy of stores with political products. There are multiple media perspectives published now and we can reasonably expect future coverage including the outcome of the court case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: As the creator of this article (who created it before realising Packer's article existed), I'll just say that most of the content here is mentioned in his article. I was personally was hoping that the merge would be the other way around, but that seems unlikely now. I do agree that merging the content in Packer's article to the main one would make the main article even lengthy and unreadable though. --

talk) 21:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge part of the content with
  2021 storming of the United States Capitol. The content is referenced and is part of the events of the second article. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, maybe rewrite and merge some of the content but this wouldn't be terribly useful as a redirect, either.
  talk | contribs) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:TENYEARTEST. This should be dealt with in the main article about the storming if at all. There have been far too many of these fork articles of questionable value.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge, although to which article is up to the closing admin. Far too much
  WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete & Redirect per
  WP:TENYEARTEST (per Darryl Kerrigan), no one will remember him or his poor taste in clothing... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This got a lot of media attention that is not dying away quickly. The main article is too big as it is. But if it is merged, it remains a big deal and should get a couple of paragraphs, not a couple of sentences. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:52, 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. Sandstein 10:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L'Union du centre

L'Union du centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Short-lived political party that never ran any candidates. What little interest it received was due to the involvement of Robert Dutil, a former cabinet minister, but there's so little to say about this party that it can be mentioned on his article (in fact, it is). Perhaps tellingly, the party does not have a corresponding page on the French Wikipedia.

I would have PRODed this but I wanted to check if anyone thinks there's anything worth merging. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Political parties don't get an automatic notability freebie just because it's possible to technically verify that they exist(ed) — the notability test requires
  reliable source coverage attesting to some form of political impact. Nominator is entirely correct that what little we actually need or can properly source about this party can be contained entirely within Dutil's existing BLP, without needing a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, more information could be built about the subject at Robert Dutil but I don't see anything here that cries out to be merged. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:17, 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. I debated calling this "no consensus" due to the number of users arguing for deletion, but the article has seen significant improvement since the nomination and no one has argued for deletion since the bulk of the sources were added. In either case, the outcome is the same. — The Earwig ^talk 06:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Duanes S. (Pappy) Larson

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 Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  178th Reconnaissance Squadron to explain the Happy Hooligans nickname. He isn't separately notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and redirect to
  178th Reconnaissance Squadron. Worthy of mention there (not currently done, hence merge) as the unit's namesake and thus a plausible redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete it is high time that we started applying verifiability guidelines and deleted all unsourced content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...@Johnpacklambert:, you're doing it again. The verifiability policy (it's not a mere guideline) only requires that sources exist. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. It does not require that sources be in the article. Only BLPs require that. Please be more careful about the claims you make in your !votes at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • this is a rubbish policy and you know it. Verrifiability should require that the sources be in the article. We need to end this hand waving to claim otherwise. The sourcing here is clearly not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't, but it doesn't, and to claim otherwise is not compliant with policy. I happen to agree with you that the relevant policies and guidelines are not met here, but please be more careful in the future about these claims because this is by far not the first time I've seen this sort of !vote from you. !Vote policy, not how you think things should be, even if those produce the same result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NOR. Sandstein 20:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Then WP:V explicitly contradicts itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; unverifiable as discussed above. Redirection is pointless as long as Larson is unverifiable and not mentioned in the target article. Sandstein 20:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Larson became a brigadier general in the North Dakota Air National Guard postwar thus meeting
  WP:SOLDIER #2 and was inducted into the North Dakota Aviation Hall of Fame. Should be moved to Duane S. Larson to remove typo from the article title. Kges1901 (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a general officer per
  WP:SOLDIER #2. Article needs renaming though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, per the sources, that clearly verify the guy existed, which have been added since nomination. He was a brigadier general, the article is well-written, and the man's been dead for fifteen years (in fact, he died two years before the article was started). Can't he rest in peace? jp×g 16:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets NSOLDIER as he held the rank of Brigadier General, equivalent to Air Commodore, explicitly stated in the Air Officer article, which is explicitly stated in NSOLDIER. WP:V is met on several fronts, as is WP:GNG, satisfying WP:N. With WP:V met, and WP:N met, Wikipedia is clearly improved if we have an article on this topic.
  AfD is not cleanup, but I am going through the sources, and will remove any material failing WP:V. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

P.S. Article indeed needs to be renamed, getting rid of the nickname and correcting his first name, but so as to avoid confusion by bots and humans, will not do so until this AfD is closed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:28, 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 William Bayley. — The Earwig ^talk 09:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperity for Posterity Party

Prosperity for Posterity Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Short-lived political party that was effectively a one-man show (its only candidate was its founder) and folded during the election. As the man in question, William Bayley, passes GNG, and as the party's only claim to fame is his involvement, I suggest merging this page into William Bayley. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge As the party is mentioned in William Bayley and the fact that it consisted of 1 person is kinda curious (even though I believe it's not the only case in the world) I believe merging would be a doog option. Less Unless (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As above explained. Sliekid (talk) 09:18, 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 speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). — The Earwig ^talk 06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Turkish Consulate attack in Lyon

1980 Turkish Consulate attack in Lyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Possible

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig ^talk 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig ^talk 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig ^talk 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — The Earwig ^talk 23:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies, I was too hasty and did not perform a proper
  WP:BEFORE search. I found the actual mention in the database; the source was probably copied incorrectly: [1][2]. Also some book mentions: [3][4]. I do not believe this is a hoax. However, I still can't find much beyond passing mentions, so I am not sure this meets the notability guideline for events. — The Earwig ^talk 00:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• However, the web source does not give the same number of casualties as the Wikipedia article does. It says there were no deaths and only 4 injuries. Strangely, the book source does mention two deaths. - GreyDynamite (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. I've added citations I found: an AP article appearing in multiple US newspapers and a French article. So, obviously, oppose deletion. Brad (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great finds, Brad. I'm withdrawing the nomination. — The Earwig ^talk 06:11, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Planting Seeds Party

Planting Seeds Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Defunct political party that never ran any candidates during its short existence, nor received any mainstream coverage. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Nothing about it at all aside from six (6) namedrops on ProQuest, none of which provide any info besides its name. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lidsdonne (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.
  talk) 15:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As per all above. Sliekid (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,Per nom. fails
  WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Really wanted to save this article just because I thought the concept was cool, but I could not find any reliable sources that covered it in depth. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:03, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs winner the national league 30 times and more

List of clubs winner the national league 30 times and more (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Initial rationale was Fails

Contested by article creator Welcome , Dear Admins , im created this article To clarify the list of clubs that are most winning in the local leagues around the world, and i have set a barrier of 30 titles to show the value of some of the major clubs. I ask from your administration to allow me continued writing on this page, and I can editing or changing the name of this article (about number of titles) and make it open without limits to be more logic.

In my view, this is comparing apples and oranges by treating all domestic leagues as equivalents. Also, there is a distinct lack of sources comparing the clubs in this way and I can't find any sources that use 30 as the benchmark either. It seems quite arbitrary and not suitable for a general encyclopaedia. It might be more appropriate on a football stats/trivia website. Spiderone 22:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most successful European football clubs by major European and domestic honours won.. As I noted there "comparing the number of domestic wins between different countries doesn't seem useful" Clearly OR. Arbitrary cutoff at 30. Nigej (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I do not disagree with you in your point of view, but also in Wikipedia, our Used to delve into the information and clarify more details. For example, in the pages of some British clubs such as Rangers of Scotland and Linfield from Northern Ireland, I found an information indication that these clubs are the most winning local leagues in the world, so I was inspired by the idea of ​​collecting the most winning clubs in the world and including them on a special page after the encyclopedia allows me regardless of the importance of the leagues I just wanted to give importance to the clubs that won a large number of titles without entering into other comparisons. I also do not have the ability to write in another important site such as Wikipedia to express details and information in this way. Therefore, I repeat my request regarding approval of this address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas88mohammed (talk • contribs) 09:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Moving this from the article talk page. Spiderone 16:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anas88mohammed - please post any comments relating to the notability of this topic on this page so everyone can see it. Spiderone 16:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment, I understand your motives behind creating the topic; it seems like you feel that the topic is underrepresented in the media and it's obviously of personal interest to you. In this case, I feel that the lack of coverage that this topic receives in reliable sources is actually a reason not to have the article. I'm sorry to be 'that guy' but I feel that this violates

WP:FORUM; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and topics created should be reflected in coverage from the experts (i.e. reliable sources). Spiderone 16:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - what a bizarre topic and article title. No evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 22:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as mentioned above, OR and arbitrary cut-off. Also not comparing like with like - while England has had a national league since 1888, Germany has only had one since 1963, so German clubs have not had anywhere near the same opportunity to rack up 30 league titles. And Wales has only had a national league since 1992, so even if the same club had won the league every single year of the league's existence it still wouldn't have reached 30 wins........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 (UTC)

• Delete As per all above. Sliekid (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The list itself is interesting and useful (especially because the last one was deleted for no reason) and there are anough sources to compile it. But the title is too arbitrary and it should be improved. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The previous list was deleted due to a complete lack of evidence that there are independent sources reporting significantly on this topic. This list has similar issues and it being interesting and useful is, unfortunately, a matter of personal opinion and not based on any Wikipedia inclusion guideline, in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 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 both. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Gullo

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

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

Both Bob Gullo and his company Electronics Design Group are non-notable. This is a double nomination. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electronics Design Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SL93 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss! 22:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. According to edit histories, thee creator of both pages is clearly an SPA made for promotional purposes.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Fails verifiability. Lidsdonne (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neither article has the reliable, verifiable in-depth sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - he does not even pass
  ordinary. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as they fail our notability guidelines.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 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.

El Sereno Skatepark

El Sereno Skatepark (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 significant coverage per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom –Cupper52^Discuss! 22:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:10, 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 redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 10:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas More Catholic Elementary School

St Thomas More Catholic Elementary School (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 (deprodded in 2012) doesn't approach notability under

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tagged for notability since 2012. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into St. Edward Central Catholic High School (Elgin, Illinois); given the location this must be a feeder school for this high school.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, but the target? If this is a diocian school, it should be redirected to the diocese. If it's a parochial school, it should be redirected to the settlement. In no case should it be merged or redirected to another school's article. 174.254.192.236 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - to
  WP:ATD 174.254.192.236 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford due to this lacking notability, but still being worth a redirect IMO. Not a merge though, because there's zero point in merging badly sourced, run of the mill things like mentions of annual turkey raffles. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamant1, there is no content whatsoever in the diocese article now regarding elementary education. A list of elementary schools will need to be added. That's the extent of "merge" I'd support. 174.254.192.246 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a list of elementary schools and maybe a brief mention of this one. That doesn't take the article being merged though. Which retains the articles edit history, Etc. Etc. Since you could literally just make the list and mention it in the article right now without merging it. Merges are more appropriate IMO when there is more content then can be easily re-written in a single edit and also when the edit history of the merged article is worth preserving. Nether is the case here though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Briefly merge or redirect somewhere - either to the high school or diocese. Primary schools are generally NN, and this one is apparently no exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron, there's a pretty clear consensus that the subject isn't notable, and nearly as clear a consensus that the page shouldn't be deleted. The remaining questions are how much content should be moved and where it should be moved to. Wikipedia has excellent coverage of the structures of the Catholic Church in the US and due to this, historically we've covered Catholic elementary education in the article on the individual school's owner if it exists. Settlement articles on small cities should generally include listings of schools. Either the diocese or Elgin could be an appropriate target, but neither is now as neither has any content AT ALL on this subject...help, please? 174.254.192.246 (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford. Subject lacks SIGCOV from IS RS for a stand alone article. A list of elementary schools should be added to the target and this should be redirected there.  // Timothy :: talk  04:33, 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.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Andrews

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

)

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

This article is about someone whose notoriety does not warrant inclusion in an article and its content is phrased as a list of accomplishments to brag about, not anything he's done for the greater good. It reads like a work biography, not a factual article. Bikerred62 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 21:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete failed city candidates are virutally never notable. On the grand scale this is also true for successful ones, but even more so for failed ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in city council elections, and nothing else here indicates that he would pass our notability criteria in some other field independent of his candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs for Israel

Arabs for Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't think current sourcing, or other references I could find justifies a separate article from Nonie Darwish, the groups leader. All sourcing I could find on the topic essentially states that "Nonie Darwish is the founder of Arabs for Israel", but has nothing else to state on the organisation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "organization" doesn't exist and has never existed. Her domain, arabsforisrael.com, which used to be a blogspot blog, has now been taken over my domain squatters. It should take more than running an infrequently updated blogspot blog to be included in Wikipedia. ImTheIP (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayback Machine shows that the website was indeed a blogspot blog from approximately 2011 onwards. However, it did have a normal, though fairly bare website from 2004- to c.2009, as can be seen in 2004 and 2006. The only content I can find on it other than the mission statement are sympathetic emails purportedly sent to Darwish by various individuals, as well as a handful of essays in the 2006 version by Darwish and various authors including Richard Benkin. Still nothing that indicates notability however. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Blogspot page (http://arabsforisrael.blogspot.com/) directs users to "For the most recent articles and appearances by Nonie Darwish, please visit the site www.NonieDarwish.org." Not a legitimate group, just a front group / corporate shell for Nonie Darwish. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not separately notable from
  talk) 02:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and not redirect, per XOReaster.VR _talk 04:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per all above. Lidsdonne (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Nonie Darwish. Base on
  WP:RS such as the Jerusalem Post cited in this article, the organization has existed. Marokwitz (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, or merge any well-sourced and neutral information which exists here and not at Nonie Darwish. warmly, ezlev. talk 05:47, 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.

Chigan Madu

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

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

speedy deleted previously, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Might need to fast track this one again. Non-notable per guideline
  Talk) 21:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the article creator created a draft that was rejected several times in AfC if memory serves, before having it deleted earlier today. This is no more notable than the draft was. As pointed out the article creator, the sources are press releases, in fact, there are three copies of the same press release in there, and it is rather hilarious to see how the same press release was apparently pushed out in two subsequent years – here he "avows" that "...the year 2019 has been good for him so far. “I have pushed out some contents this year [...]"" and here and here he "disclosed" that "...2020 has been a fruitful year for him. Speaking on that he shares, “I have pushed out some contents this year [...]" ". If we were not sure whether he was notable or not, that clinches it. --bonadea contributions talk 22:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above; also, the article is clearly intended to promote and is written like a CV Spiderone 23:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obviously fails
  WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC✉ 22:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Per above, does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant coverage. Peter303x (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:28, 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 redirect to World Masters Athletics Championships. Daniel (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 World Masters Athletics Championships

2020 World Masters Athletics Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Didn't happen, and not notable. This non event doesn't need an article just because the event normally does Joseph2302 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to World Masters Athletics Championships. I've already merged in the relevant information to the article. A redirect should remain to allow categorisation, particularly for Category:Athletics (track and field) competitions cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. I don't think any further discussion is required as this is non-controversial, but I'm leaving the discussion in place for procedural reasons. SFB 02:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree this is sensible, but when I speedy redirected, I got reverted which is why I started this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 17 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. BD2412 T 04:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djerv (band)

Djerv (band) (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

• Delete Fails
  WP:BAND are met. Insurance Lovers (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not qualifies in WP:GNG. Lidsdonne (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - They appear to have had an album in the top ten of the Norwegian charts. Would this signify some notability? Foxnpichu (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That would pass criteria 2 of
  WP: NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) but it needs to proven and it isn't sourced in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: This is the Djerv album's entry on the Norwegian billboard page: https://www.vglista.no/album/djerv/ A cover and a Spotify link. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - band doesn't appear to meet
  WP:GNG and the claim to meeting NMUSIC is looking like it's false Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 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 no consensus to delete. It appears unlikely that relisting would yield a consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 04:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Yanaka

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

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

As the article stands at present this is an unsourced biography of a living person. None of the claims here give default notability, they require multiple sources to show that the particular winning of a beauty contests was notable, and that her roles as a broadcast journalist were notable, both of which are lacking at present John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  Talk) 20:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Drafity. A quick search shows that she's been mentioned by major news outlets like Oricon and Sports Nippon. Her Japanese Wikipedia page shows she's made a lot of media appearances in magazines and televisions. I'm willing to give this article a chance but these media appearances need to be backed up by sources otherwise I'd support deletion. lullabying * :::(talk) 22:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is a winner of Miss Nippon; that's a significant achievement if not a nobel prize. She also had some career afterward; so these seem enough for notability. The sourcing needs to be improved; not a reason for deletion. -- Taku (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator
  WP:BEFORE quickly grows complicated for BLP individuals who have multiple names, or whose names are in foreign languages. You can't rely on the suggested seaches that AFD guesses you will need. Your BEFORE compliance requires you to include their nicknames, their foreign names. In addition, if the article name includes disambiguation, you have to rewrite the google search terms to take the disambiguation into account. Geo Swan (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:SIGCOV. As winner of a major beauty contest, she has gotten lots of coverage. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep due to nominator's failure to comply with
  WP:BEFORE. I made a number of additions. Geo Swan (talk) 06:58, 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.

N.K.V.D (metal band)

N.K.V.D (metal band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

French industrial black metal project. The article was created in 2014, and since then it is tagged for notability and sources. The sourcing is not the best, and that's me being polite. An interview on an unreliable looking site, and bandcamp. Not satisfied. But anyways, during a google search I couldn't find anything that establishes notability. Only the usual databases, youtube videos, streaming links and lots of blogs. I have found several album reviews but they are featured on said blogs. There is no article about this in frwiki either. So, in my opinion, this is not notable, but as always, I am happy to be proven wrong. (And yes, I know that Avantgarde Music is a notable label, so at least one aspect of notability is completed. But the sourcing is always more important, in my opinion.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per GhostDestroyer100.–Cupper52^Discuss! 22:19, 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Graham (referee)

Fred Graham (referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clearly a fairly prolific referee in tiers 2-4 of England but that alone does not make him notable by default. I did not find any sources exploring him in depth during a search of Google and Gnews. ProQuest was slightly better; I found this and this but, in my view, these articles do not add enough depth to build a biography from. Newspaper articles where a referee is only mentioned briefly because they made a controversial decision is arguably trivial coverage. I do not believe he meets any reasonable interpretation of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just because he is prolific at low level of competition does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG. GiantSnowman 22:42, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Deadman

Darren Deadman (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 not seeing enough evidence to justify an article; does not seem to meet the standards of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only coverage in RS is mentions from the Sharp game which is not good enough for GNG. SK2242 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails GNG. GiantSnowman 22:42, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Six By Nine College

Six By Nine College (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 non-notable web-comic, I could not find anything to suggest notability from independent reliable sources. Fails

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason as both web-comics have the same author:

Prayer For Ruin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty much nothing about either of these webcomics anywhere. SK2242 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I wasn't able to find any independent information on this comic beyond the trivial mention at collegeotr.com. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting, but there's zero coverage in
  reliable sources such as newspapers. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 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) 13:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dalimas

Dalimas (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 Wikipedia:Notability (music). HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Discogs is not a reliable source, and there are no other sources (other than the official site and the official fanclub, but those are cited as external links, and they are no support for notability either). The Portuguese article cites a (now) dead link as a source. Couldn't find anything during a search that establishes notability. Only the standard, usual junk sites like youtube, download and lyrics sites, retail sites, facebook and other social media and streaming sites. No evidence of notability. The article was created way back in 2006, and notability hasn't been proven ever since. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello,

I tried as a member of Eurodance Music Fan clun in Brasil to update the article. Unfortunatly it was believed there was no Source and the entire Article was deleted.

For Dance Music Scene in Brazil, Dalimas was the biggest Dance Music Group, with Building Records. THe Record Label doenst exist anymore, but the Groupe was very relevant for the National Dance Music.

Me as a Fan am very sad that you are deleting the information writen in 2006. Maybe in US or Canada you dont understand it. Building Records was the biggest National Dance Music Label in Brasil.

The article was writen in 2006, when the group presented on PLANET POP FESTIVAL in Sao Paulo.

Here are some Sources. At that time INternet wasnt like it is now, and many articles are still print.

PLanet POp - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3dW2xlazao

https://www.ofuxico.com.br/noticias-sobre-famosos/gisele-abramoff-conta-como-sera-o-fim-de-ano-na-alemanha/2020/12/23-392497.html

https://portalrplus.com/2021/01/07/gisele-abramoff-prepara-vinda-ao-brasil-para-lancamento-de-lockdown/?no_cache=1610045744

https://www.meine-anzeigenzeitung.de/lokales/muenchen-nord/unterschleissheimerin-your-voice-kick-off-gesangskarriere-13866630.html

https://epopnaweb.com.br/diva-da-dance-music-gisele-abramoff-prepara-vinda-ao-brasil/

https://olaitapetininga.com.br/a-cantora-gisele-abramoff-ex-dalimas-retorna-ao-brasil-para-gravar-videoclipe-e-singles/

https://jornalnoticiasdesaopaulo.com.br/diva-da-dance-music-gisele-abramoff-prepara-vinda-ao-brasil/

https://www.portalego.com.br/diva-da-dance-music-gisele-abramoff-prepara-vinda-ao-brasil/

https://jornalnoticiasdobrasil.com.br/diva-da-dance-music-gisele-abramoff-prepara-vinda-ao-brasil/

https://portoferreiranoticias.com.br/diva-da-dance-music-gisele-abramoff-prepara-vinda-ao-brasil/

https://portalrplus.com/2020/12/01/gisele-abramoff-diva-da-dance-music-prepara-vinda-ao-brasil/

https://lucianamaluf.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/29.11rj.pdf

http://osasconoticias.com/news/gisele-abramoff-conta-como-sera-o-fim-de-ano-na-alemanha-178095.html

GA Pop Dance, none of these sources show in-depth coverage. Let me go through them one by one. All these sources focus on Abramoff not on the band. This does not prove at all that this band is notable.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) The first reference is a 3 minute Youtube link of a performance 2) This is an interview with Abramoff which a) is

• Delete: Not a single source covering them in-depth. Clear
  Dimmi!!! 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Plus, on pt.WP this same article was created by an
  Dimmi!!! 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, but I strongly disagree that it's as obvious a delete as others have suggested. After searching extensively in Portuguese I believe that Gisele Abramoff should have a page, but not Dalimas. I keep finding coverage of Abramoff that would almost certainly pass GNG, but basically nothing that treats Dalimas in anything more than passing fashion. This is a bit tantalizing, because the band dissolved in 2007, before a lot of Brasilian culture magazines were publishing online, and I think it's very possible that someone with the right access to offline portuguese-language sources could put together a good GNG argument. I was also intrigued by the fact that the Portuguese page asserts that at one point Dalimas became one of the most famous dance music bands in Brazil, with lots of hints at a
  WP:BAND 7 argument that it exemplifies early 21st century Brazilian electronica, but that claim has had a citation needed tag for almost 4 years now. Dalimas was described in some depth in this magazine article from 2019, and there it is referred to as a success, and one of the main national projects of a large record label, but it's not really in depth, and anyhow I can't find a second similar source. Finally, only 1 award is named for Dalimas, and it's one of 31 annual awards given by a magazine that itself does not appear to be particularly prominent. So I think it's a delete, but in the long term what I would really like to see is a page at Gisele Abramoff that covers some content related to Dalimas, with a redirect from Dalimas to that page. - Astrophobe (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, most sources I could find focus on Gisele Abramoff, so maybe she's notable, but the group is not. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 16:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -
  sourcng is very poor. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 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. Sandstein 10:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hispanic professional American football players

List of Hispanic professional American football players (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 largely uncited list is a violation of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non encyclopedic cross categorisation and complex list criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's interesting, useful, and beautifully presented, but the lack of sourcing makes me reluctant to support. Cbl62 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation, violates BLP policy as per nom and there is a lack of evidence of strong coverage that would allow us to even think about overlooking those issues Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Trust

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

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

This is essentially the same article as

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I think this article is pretty blatant advertising, created by a single purpose account. It would have to be completely rewritted to be encyclopedic. Bensci54 (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while the concept was created by Elisity, it is still a very relevant concept in the cyber-security world, and is being implemented by leading organizations across the globe. It will be recognized by several reputable organizations (like gartner) in the near future, and does in fact enhance the capabilities of the traditional zero trust architecture. The article is being edited to be more encyclopedic now, and less promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:4600:55D0:A440:55F5:4A39:C85C (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparently this is essentially a variant of
  Zero Trust Networks, and not appropriate for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 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.

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

)

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

Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG Akronowner (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A
  talk • contribs) 18:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. to 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries. I did a search and found some passing mentions of his campaign in Reason ([5][6][7][8]). There was also a mention in The Gazette ([9]). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not opposed to a redirect should that be the closers decision. --
  Talk) 19:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect as suggested: reasonable and
  WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect. As per above suggested. Setreis (talk) 08:27, 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) 13:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disha Jha

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

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

Contested PROD but no reason provided. Does not meet any inclusion guideline; assistant directors and crew members are not notable by default and would need to meet

I could not find multiple sources covering Disha Jha in any great depth during a

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives coverage that is sufficiently great or important enough to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
  Talk) 18:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:BASIC. Nobility is not inherited. RationalPuff (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - she's gotten quite a lot of media attention because she's the trust fund baby of notable, creative people. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this could be mentioned in the articles of the parents but doesn't necessarily do enough to substantiate an article on Disha Jha. She is essentially still just an apprentice/production assistant/costume supervisor who happens to have famous parents Spiderone 17:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant coverage. Peter303x (talk) 02:22, 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 Success Principles (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 not seeing coverage that adds up to

1. [10] Q&A interview with the author, note that the main focus of the interview is Canfield's other work and only Canfield actually mentions The Success Principles
2. [11] The author describes Canfield as his "good friend", not independent
3. [12] List of 12 books with only a short paragraph devoted to The Success Principles, and the source looks to be of dubious reliability to boot
4. [13] Arguably the best source cited, although the unmitigated praise leaves me a little dubious of its reliability (e.g. a revised and updated edition of this masterpiece has been released in 2015 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of its first publication. The book’s practical and inspiring words have certainly helped thousands of its readers to see success in a different light.). The off-the-beaten path source (an English language Cambodian paper for a book published in the US?) also raises some concerns _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Rosguill. Akronowner (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Akronowner, Cupper52, n.b. that I'm suggesting to redirect the article, not delete it. You may want to change either your !vote (if you agree with me) or your rationale (if you don't) accordingly. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - as per Rosguill's suggestion. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass
  WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to the author as suggested. I'm ok with redirects where applicable. The subject fails notability and should not have a stand alone article. --
  Talk) 19:01, 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.

List of quarterbacks of non-white and non-black descent or ancestry

List of quarterbacks of non-white and non-black descent or ancestry (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 largely uncited list constitutes a violation of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 17:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Potentially useful. Bus stop (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How? Kolma8 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:ITSUSEFUL - argument to avoid in AfD if possible Spiderone 19:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It is potentially useful. Usefulness should be a factor considered in deletion discussions, especially for WP:LISTS. "Who was that Japanese silent film era actor who played college football? I think he was once penalized for using jujitsu to bring down an opponent. I can't remember his name." This WP:LIST is useful because it helps us find

navigational purposes. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It could be a good trivia bit and good for a WP:DYK on the main page, but from the vibe I'm getting, this fact probably belongs better on his page, provided there is verification.--WuTang94 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if there are inaccuracies the viable option is to

WP:FIXIT rather than delete the article. Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation, in my humble opinion Spiderone 19:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is nothing really useful about this list. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an irregular grouping, all the more so since some of the people on this list have white ancestry (and a few may have black ancestry as well). Some of these people have very complex ancestry. Anyway, I do not think many people like seeing their Hispanic/Pacific Islander/Asian ancestry grouped as "non-White, non-Black". Especially since on a world scale Hispanic/Asian/Pacific Islanders far outnumber blacks and white combined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Deciding what to name this article was a very awkward process to begin with. My sincerest apologies if this has offended anyone.--WuTang94 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed that its largely uncited. Peter303x (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this list, there was better sourcing at the beginning (even if it was just a select number of sources), but eventually, it evolved into a mostly unsourced list after further edits by other users. It's probably too tedious to go back and source every quarterback at this point so I'm fine with this list being huffed. It's also just a "nice to have" list, but can go if it doesn't provide much real value and if most users want it gone. Maybe quarterbacks such as Tom Flores (first Latino QB in NFL) and Roman Gabriel (first Asian QB in NFL) could have side notes on their own individual pages if it's not there already, as there should be verified sources on them.--WuTang94 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it's automatically notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. A real
  WP:OR. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as a non-notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:LISTN as the grouping is not discussed enough in reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 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) 13:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lamar Grant (actor)

Charles Lamar Grant (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about a non-notable actor that has been moved to draft twice and speedily deleted once, all very recently. The creator created this article under a new name adding "(actor)" at the end. Fails

• Delete and salt Reads like a promotional article as well. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (preferably speedy as {{Db-g4}}). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Do it slowly. Kolma8 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, delete, delete, delete..is this like the fourth time? Doesn't meet the notability guideline all day and night every day forever and ever and ever, even the imaginary one the fairy outside my window secretly whispered to me. --
  Talk) 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - (Article creator.) I wasn't notified about this? I think I requested previous deletions of draft. Recreated when found additional citations. There are more I haven't included, such as https://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Charles-Grant/, https://portlandplayhouse.org/staff-member/charles-grant/, https://artistsrep.org/artists/charles-grant/, but not sure if they help? I thought "Matter" at the Portland Playhouse and its buzz and its relation to the "Black Lives Matter" movement warranted conclusion via
  WP:NACTOR - Has had significant roles in multiple notable stage performances or other productions / Has made unique, or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment (MATTER). I will go along with consensus obviously and won't resubmit whatever the decision, but obviously I vote to keep. HistoricalAccountings (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete not even close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is just a list of credits. If you want to write an encyclopedia article, you need to write narrative paragraphs that tell a biographical story sourced to reliable published third-party sources that explain the person's encyclopedic importance. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Salt if the consensus is ignored again. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails
  WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 22:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No good references and looks almost promotional. I can definitely see room for improvement though, if the tone of voice of the article changes and more appropriate references added, then my vote would change. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:35, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for Winter Olympics held in Barcelona

Plans for Winter Olympics held in Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is mostly written in the future tense for the potential for Barcelona to host the winter Olympic games in 2026. However, they are being held in Milano-Cortina, Italy. As such, this article fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Barcelona didn't even submit a formal bid for either 2022 or 2026; see Bids for the 2022 Winter Olympics and Bids for the 2026 Winter Olympics. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a
  WP:CRYSTAL, not to mention one that didn't pan out. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete in addition to the above,
  Talk) 19:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The plans to host the Olympics did not materialize and relevant information is already included in Bids for the 2022 Winter Olympics and Bids for the 2026 Winter Olympics. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:14, 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.

Anger (song)

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

)

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

Fails

Yeah I don't mind you removing it. When I first created it, I knew nothing about how to add sources at the time. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Tagged for notability since 2015. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives coverage that is sufficiently great or important enough to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails
  Talk) 18:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Tsistunagiska: Just wondering, do you post this same paragraph at every deletion discussion? Honestly, I don't see the point of that, as it doesn't demonstrate that you've actually looked into the specific article up for discussion (although I obviously assume that you have). Additionally, I assume everyone here knows how notability works, so there's no need for you to explain that in your vote. Lennart97 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk) 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, can you tell me what I assumed in which direction? Lennart97 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy looking up other topics so I missed it but the evidence was left all over my screen when I returned. :-\

Talk) 19:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I think they're just saying you can just link to

WP:GNG rather than copy/pasting its contents like this. Especially in clear cut situations like this. You don't need to go into great detail about what significant coverage means when there's no sourcing at all currently present. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the tip. I think I'll stick with stating facts. People keep proving that they don't really understand notability. --

Talk) 19:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Tsistunagiska: If by 'stating facts' you mean your current approach, please don't. Concerning People keep proving that they don't really understand notability.: assuming incompetence is no better than assuming bad faith. Also, why did you think it's okay to use my signature? It's not, please don't ever do that again. Lennart97 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You don't have to tag me, it's a waste of extra time on your part since I see every post here anyway. In regards to what I wrote here, prove anything I said as false and I will acknowledge it, otherwise, if you just don't like what I write then offer your !vote and move on. Why did you think it was ok to ever say anything directly to me in your condescending tone to begin with? If you can't take it back at you then don't bring it in the first place. Buh bye, now. Have a nice day! --

Talk) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Needlessly aggressive response, both here and below. You could have simply acknowledged, or even ignored, my initial comment to your vote, but you chose not to, and then you chose to use my signature for reasons still unclear to me, which I still ask you to explain. Lennart97 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I mean, really?? You tag me, aggressively, and then expect me not to respond at all? Why did you tag me in the first place? Did you honestly believe anything you said was going to change my opinion? Let me answer that for you. No. You did it because you like to throw your opinions at others and get offended when they respond to you in kind. In regards to your signature, you acted puzzled that I commented on your assuming in a certain direction and I was sore afraid that your account had possibly been hacked and I wanted to confirm that it was, in fact, your signature and you did make assumptions in my direction which you subsequently confirmed to my overwhelming relief. I have no reason to post your signature anymore since I know it is you. Take care and be safe --

Talk) 21:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll just leave this here and this. Good luck with that. Lennart97 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said you're wrong, they're just saying it's excessive. Please don't take it so personally. We all have the same stance overall, so there's no need to fight. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. I dont recall ever interacting with you at AFD before, so I'm puzzled that you have criticisms on my past comments at AFD. Regardless, it has no bearing on this AFDs outcome, and you seem to have no interest in not taking things personally, so I will leave you be. Take care. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm puzzled. I never criticized your comments on the actual article or on any other article. I only pointed to the obvious singling out of my condensed version of the usual wall of text you see other editors put on AfD's that I have never seen the two of you comment on before. Also pointing out that your comments on my evaluation has nothing to do with the validity of the discussion so it was kinda pointless to ever bring up on your part. But I agree, take care and be safe. --

Talk) 21:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - As is, is nothing more than an unsourced stub full of
  WP:OR. No problem with it being recreated if someone actually does dig up sources, but I'm not particularly certain it's coming with such an old song. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  wp:Reliable. Totally un-cited, can't even merge to the album. GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  talk) 13:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete completely unsourced and currently loaded with
  WP:OR. No significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, no charting, no certifications. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Here, My Dear: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:Preserve 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to the album,
  WP:NSONG. No independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:21, 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 Scottish sword dances. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gillidh Callum

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

)

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

Notability not established, very short article with only one source from 1862. PatGallacher (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have cited some more sources (from 1970 and 1901) that have a few dozen words each about the subject.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge That's the kind of information that Wikipedia is great to provide! North (1963), Haensel-Berichte (1978) and NEFA tell the same story. So this should definitely be
  WP:PRESERVED. In the previews, however, I did not see content to much expand the existing article. If that's all there is to it, it should be merged somewhere. Sadly, I am too unfamiliar with this area to suggest where. If more sources could be found I would be happy to change my opinion to keep. Daranios (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Scottish sword dances unless the information is false. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament of Knights

Tournament of Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Exactly zilch suggestion of notability. Article has been tagged for lacking notability for months short of a decade (and tagged in general since December 2007). Prodded on the 13th, deprodded on the 14th, but the kind of deprod where it's suggested to go to AfD rather than confidently keep.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To appease another editor's concern for my fingers I am condensing this !vote into a shorter version of my findings on this
  Talk) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete blatantly spam for a non-notable game. I can’t believe this article has survived for almost 15 years. Dronebogus (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this game was obviously invented by the article's creator, and I can find no coverage at all in any sources that aren't game resellers. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails in passing
  WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 09:27, 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.

Jugraj Singh (author)

Jugraj Singh (author) (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 author and not notable for anything else. The book he supposedly wrote hasn't been reviewed by any sources that we look to for notability (though a similarly named book, not by him has) CUPIDICAE💕 16:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:GNG. Additionally based on the username and profile of Jugrajsingh77 (the author) it looks like an Wikipedia:Autobiography. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:SELFPROMOTION. MarnetteD|Talk 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per lack of evidence of meeting any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Probably qualifies as
  WP:NOTPROMO but the AFD process will send a stronger message than a G11-speedy deletion would. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As per above. Akronowner (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]