Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 23	January 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramarshi Dev Trivedi

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

I wanted to rescue this, but despite several weeks of research, I cannot find any evidence of notability. In all honesty, I haven't been able to find much to even verify the sole claim of notability: "Rishi ji was one of the most renowned freedom fighters of Bihar." Note: many of the books results are copies of the article. The rest of the article is mostly associations, but notability is not inherited and I cannot find an obvious merge target. StarM 23:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent coverage. --IWI (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited. VocalIndia (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced article. Couldn't trace anything online other than backlink to the Wikipedia. RationalPuff (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Vanny089 (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Requires more proper sources. Let's it go for now Jenyire2 19:31, 31 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 22:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Mendel

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

Resumé article on a non notable fashion designer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The sources in the article barely discuss her and a WP:BEFORE search predominantly shows google hits on her father. I do not see WP:BIO satisfied Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual sign of notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 25 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 deleted by User:Fastily after being moved to Draft space followed by WP:G7 request. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen McElduff

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

Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. They an actress but do not satisfy WP:NACTOR. A before search turns up nothing concrete Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:12, 24 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) starship .paint (exalt) 11:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020–2021 United States racial unrest

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

This is a fine article, no doubt. However, it is a content fork from Black Lives Matter, which is not permitted. Furthermore, it is strongly original research, WP:OR, which is banned in Wikipedia. There is nothing about 2020 that is special. It is just arbitrary chosen by original research. It could just as well be 1968-2021 United States racial unrest. Another point is that the article isn't even about 2020-2021 for there's a big section about foreign countries. These countries are not the United States. This article should be merged with BLM and redirected. A fine article but not permitted under WP:OR and just a duplicated BLM article with less information. Sorry. And remember, black lives do matter.

Another solution is to just create a new Category. That's what categories are for. If you're interested in a topic, say the killing of Breonna Taylor, you can click on that category and see articles for other similar killings. Vowvo (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Vowvo (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC) original nominator votes "Keep" See reasoning near the bottom following the comment of User:RopeTricks Vowvo (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. This is a legit CFORK per WP:SPINOUT. Content issues can be fixed and are not a valid reason for AFD. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ start a new Category for these killings, which is really what this article is all about. Vowvo (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Double vote struck; you already voted in your nomination. The article is not a list of killings but about the social upheaval surrounding them. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not at all a content fork of Black Lives Matter, but a wider and different, although overlapped subject. One should just check the content of both pages to see it. This page might be renamed, but this should be discussed separately. My very best wishes (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an obviously notable topic that would not fit in the BLM article or any other and would need to be immediately spun out again. Sources are clear that 2020, especially, is different from preceding years (some of which BLM existed during). Anyone who's been paying attention knows that Summer 2020 is totally different from Summer 2019, for example. And the events are not all about BLM. This talks about all sort of other things, from anti-racist self-education to riots. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a wider subject than BLM and a category would not sufficiently cover the protests and subsequent unrest. It is not OR either because the article is properly sourced. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is something about 2020 that's special, and it's the fact that there is enough documented data on US racial tensions at that time to guarantee the creation of an article about it and therefore follows WP:GNG. They have certainly been a thing before 2020, but you can probably recognize that in 2020 it undoubtedly escalated and got a lot more media coverage. It's not an invalid content fork because the article has a different scope than that of BLM's article and the topics, while connected, are not the same; merging it with the BLM article would make the section massive and give it excessive weight in comparison to the rest of the article. It is also well sourced and therefore does not constitute WP:OR. An article's scope falling within a specific time frame doesn't make it original research nor is a reason for deletion. A category would also fail to properly explain the connection, background and consequences of these events. Oqwert (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'*delete very tough decision because people may think a keep is for BLM and a delete means you're a racist bigot. These killings have links to WP article so the article is really just a category, which it should become. The other info fits nicely into BLM. In fact, years from now, kids will look up BLM but they won't look here. Category could be "BLM related killings and protests". #SayHerName #BLM Vanny089 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is very clearly a current period of heightened racial and social unrest within the united states. some argue it originated in 2016, some argue 2012, some argue further than that, but the George Floyd protests in particularly, which began in the middle of a global pandemic and election year, was the main harbinger of the recent hyper-sensitivity to racial issues right now, and a page dedicated to collating related events during this period is necessary until the social zeitgeist shifts and/or the relative social upheaval dies down notably. RopeTricks (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Your linking it to post-George Floyd makes sense! That would mean that 1968-2021 does not makes sense but post-George Floyd does. I now will change my vote. Vowvo (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How anyone can think this is a content fork rather than a related article or that categories are the way to deliver this information is beyond me. It's not "arbitrary" that this article starts in 2020, the George Floyd killing during a pandemic had a different result than other killings of black people by police. Such a notable topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is an absurd deletion nom. This is an event, clearly different from Black Lives Matter. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - What the hell? These riots have caused a ton of damage and deaths and now we are deleting it for OR? There are a ton of sources for this, solve it by referencing, not XFD'ing this! 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 14:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. --Kemalcan (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy Waters (video game)

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

This topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such that we could write a dedicated encyclopedia article on the topic without resorting to original research. Its only coverage is in passing, apart from one gameguide source (50 Fun Ways to Internet by Book-mart Press). The topic had no substantive additional analytical coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar, or a custom Google search of video game sources. There have been no sourcing improvements to the article since the last AfD and there are no worthwhile redirect targets, as our List of MUDs only lists games with their own articles. czar 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 22:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is borderline but adds up a bit shy of WP:N imo. Probably when I wrote the article I was hoping that something else would show up that would kick it over the line, but that hasn't happened and it's had plenty of time. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the game. Source #2 seem to be the only source which talks about the game, but that's not enough for the article to be notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. IceWelder [✉] 20:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 03:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Izzo

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

The only ref is a short bio. Searching finds no other in-depth independent coverage. Does not meet WP:GNG. The seems to be a direct translation of the Italian WP article which has no additional sources. MB 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MB 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Architects design buildings, but not all architects are notable. This seems to be a memorial and part of a walled garden of stubs about this architect and his designs, none of which have significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Oduro Osae

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

Another BLP that’s been sitting at the back of the NPP queue for weeks. There are plenty of refs but nevertheless it’s doubtful that’s the subject is notable. Bringing to AfD for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the head of an internal audit agency is just not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep The subject is being covered in many reliable sources and has served several positions of which all the sources indicated. Per my checks on notability he is being interviewed atleast everyweek on topics regarding governance in Ghana and his comments are published on almost every news sources in Ghana. Obengjennifer (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Obengjennifer: could you provide three links to good examples of this please? Mccapra (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Below are three links to articles about interviews he has had.

https://www.peacefmonline.com/pages/politics/politics/202101/436327.php

https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/85-ministers-good-but-you-could-have-reduced-further-Oduro-Osae-to-Akufo-Addo-1161637

https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/general-news/ghana-news-don-t-misappropriate-state-funds-dr-osae-urges-internal-auditors.html

--Obengjennifer (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This article may pass GNG so we’ll see what other editors think. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep The subject is notable and somehow meets WP:GNG But the whole article must be well streamlined, The subject in question even is an academic as well as a local governance commentator he is mostly on radio and television giving commentary or comments on governance and other aspects, better reliable sources have to be used in the article as some of the sources may not be considered as reliable enough in my opinion. The most reliable ones must be used and not just be put there just because of mere mentions, if not then any article can be put on wikipedia. Thats my opinion. Thanks Ampimd (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. He appears to be what we call an inspector general in the United States. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Storm in the Glass

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

Non notable fan film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since May 2017. Previous AfD was no consensus. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable fan film, that has zero sources currently. Searching for more, under both given English titles, turns up pretty much nothing in reliable sources. Searching under its Russian name turns up a few hits in articles about the creator, but nothing more than listing it as something he did with no actual coverage of the film itself. It also appears that this fan film no longer has an equivalent article on the Russian Wikipedia, as it seems to have been deleted there. The "Keep" votes in the prior AFD 13 years ago that resulted in the No Consensus decision were not based any any Wikipedia policy or guidelines, and should be disregarded. Rorshacma (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and should have been binned in 2007. SK2242 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM and per all of the above; the previous discussion was not good and some of the keep arguments had nothing to do with any notability guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Touhid Talukder

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

Non notable producer. I did google search but didn't find anything notable. There are some refs in the article but they are passing mentions. There is no significant coverage about this person. Fails WP:CREATIVE. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable person, failed WP:GNG , and not notable in anything else.103.140.86.62 (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:GNG. Producers, especially co-producers as with this subejct, are rarely notable. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 29 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 14:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parti conscience universelle

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

Non-notable political party. Unsourced article; except for a few external links (the party's website now doesn't exist). I can't find any sources for the party either. It was PRODded by Kawnhr for the reason: No demonstrated notability. Short-lived political party (FR wiki page shows it's defunct) that never ran any candidates. But then deprodded by MJL who stated that French language sources exist for it. However, I can't see any French language sources, and the French WP page only has one (inaccessible) source. Seagull123 Φ 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. French language sources do exist on this topic (La Presse being particularly noteworthy). However, online I could only find one ([1]). I also found passing mentions here and here. It could be worth considering mentioning the party here and just applying a redirect though. Not sure it's warranted enough, though.
I only de-prodded because the sources are out there even if the article doesn't reflect them at the moment. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: where are these French language sources though? There's the La Presse one on the Fr-WP page (I can't access that, but I'm assuming it's in-depth), and that one you linked to from radio-canada.ca. The other two you linked are, as you say, passing mentions, which seem to just state that at one point the party existed. I personally don't see how that shows notability. I wouldn't be opposed to a mention of this party in that election page you linked to (as it's mentioned in the Fr-WP page here). Maybe even a bit of a translation/expansion based on that Fr-WP page would be good? Seagull123 Φ 14:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123: Yeah, definitely! I'll see what I can do later tonight. It's just going to be tough without that La Presse article is all. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: thanks for that, I've left a message at the reference desk to see if anyone can help. Seagull123 Φ 15:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seagull123:

Done Not my best work, but it's a start. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just left a request at WP:RX for that La Presse article. Seagull123 Φ 22:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The party's lone financial report, covering the years 2005 and 2006, can be accessed here: [2], and it demonstrates that it was a fly-by-night outfit functioning on minimal funds. It does prove that the party existed in accordance to local laws, however, at least for a brief period. However, I'm not convinced that this enough to make it notable. I cannot access the article from La Presse, but its title leads one to think that the party is only mentioned in passing. It did not run candidates in any election, as far as I can tell and, as indicated above, news coverage was extremely limited after its founding. Xuxl (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PINGing all participants in this discussion so far (@Kawnhr, MJL, and Xuxl). The request I left at WP:RX for help finding the La Presse source has been successful, and a link to that issue of La Presse is here (you'll need to scroll down to page A3 to find the article). The text of the article seems to take up about a quarter of the page, and from my reading of it, it seems to be about the founder of the party, and is a discussion of both her, the party, and how she founded it. I would say it is in-depth for Wikipedia's purposes. Seagull123 Φ 23:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it is actually an in-depth article on the party in a serious newspaper. However, I'm not certain that's enough to establish notability. For politicians, simply having been a candidate is not enough; you have to either have been elected to a notable office or gathered significant coverage while running for election. For a party, is it enough to have simply existed very briefly, without contesting an election? Because apart from that article and the one from radio-Canada about its founding there's very little out there. I also looked for articles about the party's leader, Aline Lafond, given it seemed to be a one-person outfit, and there's little out there either. So I'm not convinced this outfit is notable, and if it is it just barely scrapes by the general notability criteria. Xuxl (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll downgrade my vote to a weak delete. I echo Xuxl's comments above: the La Presse article is certainly a solid source, but I'm left wondering how much there is to actually say about it. It existed, it professed this ideology and these goals, and… that's about it. This is still fundamentally a minor party that folded in two years, before it could even field any candidates; it cannot be said to have made even the smallest ripple in Quebec politics. That it received a degree of coverage (from La Presse and CBC both) is certainly unusual, but does that make it notable? I'm not convinced. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - political parties fall under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) – "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable..." WP:ORGSIG – it may not even count as a political party as it is not listed at Election Canada Registered Political Parties and Parties Eligible for Registration (1) – they don't appear to have ever run a candidate in an election, provincial or federal - cheers, Epinoia (talk) 05:24, 1 February 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) 07:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper Records

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

Unsourced for almost 14 years. This article is actually about two unrelated record labels of the same name neither of which seem to be that notable and neither of which seem to have ever released a notable piece of work. I can prove that the Bulgarian label existed because it is cited here in Hip Hop Around the World: An Encyclopedia. I couldn't actually find any in-depth coverage about either the Swedish or the Bulgarian label, though, to demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. This could potentially be redirected to Bulgarian hip hop or Spens (musician) if we're looking for an WP:ATD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no sources on this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another unnotable record label. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The record label is yet to meet wiki notability standards. Jenyire2 (talk) 10:05, 29 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. Please refer to my closing summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China due to obvious similarities. El_C 22:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States

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

See related Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China. This article is either a WP:POVFORK or a WP:POINT that seems bizarre. The article is also, seemingly, misattributing political statements and arguments by individual governing officials as official statements of the United States in a problematic WP:SYNTH fashion. We can include the appropriate material at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic rather than referring to any country with a byline. jps (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep I see no synth here and covid disinformation in the US has been a major story in national and international news outlets. It's notable. CUPIDICAE💕 21:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This article isn't COVID disinformation in the US. This is COVID misinformation by the US. jps (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And it still doesn't change my vote that it's a notable topic because the US was responsible for significant amounts of covid misinformation and is covered by numerous rs. CUPIDICAE💕 21:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of those WP:RSes being used in the article. Instead, we have attribution of statements by people like Bill de Blasio as though he is speaking for the entire country? jps (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if you didn't bother to read any of the sources. “The biggest surprise was that the president of the United States was the single largest driver of misinformation around Covid,” said Sarah Evanega, the director of the Cornell Alliance for Science and the study’s lead author. “That’s concerning in that there are real-world dire health implications.” and Misinformation around the pandemic is “one of the major reasons” the United States is not doing as well as other countries in fighting the pandemic, said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein from The New York Times [3] CUPIDICAE💕 21:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic driven by Donald Trump might be a worthy article. But that is not this article. jps (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, misinformation spread by elements of the media, by public leaders and by individuals with large social media platforms has contributed to a disproportionately large share of COVID-19 burden: Scientific American [4] CUPIDICAE💕 21:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic spread by social media, Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic spread by public leaders, and Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic spread by the media would all be articles that could do well as well. The point is that this article's very title is attributing misinformation to a country as a singular voice. There are elements within a whole variety of countries that have spread misinformation. There was the rally in Berlin, there are numerous wackadoos from Australia, UK, etc.... jps (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly not interested in reading the sources, so I'm not going to respond further. CUPIDICAE💕 21:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. I read both the sources you posted. They say nothing about attributing misinformation to a country as a political, governmental, or monolithic social unit. jps (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which rock you've been under for the past five years or so, but the entire United States experienced a systemwide glitch called Trump, which unfortunately makes this article a keep. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blink*. In this very thread I point out that attribution of misinformation to Donald Trump is sourced. Is there a source that indicates that Donald Trump = US while he was president? jps (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Trump lies the parts that apply, and random nonsense from Governors can just slip through the cracks, or get added to state specific articles. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Misinformation on COVID-19 by the Trump administration because this is the actual subject of the page. The subject is obviously notable and widely covered in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a POVFORK. It's a WP:CFORK. The original article is Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments, and that in turn was CFORKed from Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The original Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic was massive, and these CFORKs were necessary to keep the article to a manageable size. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't the proper title then be Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States government then? There is a lot of content in the article that is not about misinformation promulgated by the US government, per se. jps (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ජපස, The content and the page title should be discussed on the talk page. Not on the AfD page. I exhort you to withdraw your nomination and take the discussion to the talk page. Walrus Ji (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If an article is a WP:POVFORK as this one seems to be (it was not spun-out properly from the other article as it includes a lot of content that is manifestly not recounting statements by the US government, for example), then AfD is appropriate. jps (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This looks like a good case of WP:CFORK the main article is very large and it is good that sub articles are branched off. Walrus Ji (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' not seeing any glaring issues.--Moxy 🍁 17:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Walrus Ji: Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. I'm sure this article was created in good faith, but it does not read like a neutral, encyclopedic summary of a topic. It reads like a bunch of criticism of the Trump administration, with a small amount of criticism of other levels of US government mixed in. In practice it's effectively a POVFORK of Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic, in that it's devoted solely to negative information about the US government's COVID-19 communication.

Some of the information can be merged back into the main misinformation article; some can probably be incorporated into Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. I don't think it's a good idea to keep it as is. (If the main misinformation article is too long, let's split it by topic instead of by country.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that there's a Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments article. That is probably a better target for merging, and it is certainly not so long as to need to be split. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information contained has encylopedic valueJenyire2 (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This passes WP:GNG, there is plenty to say about United States misinformation specifically, and unfortunately I think there is a lot to say about misinformation in specific other countries. The misinformation is just getting started as the United States has barely begun vaccination. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:37, 29 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. There is a clear consensus to retain the page. Any proposals to move and/or otherwise repurpose it should be attempted in the usual way. El_C 22:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by China

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

Seems like either a WP:POVFORK of Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic or a WP:POINTy political article meant to cast blame on China which is, for better or worse, a right-wing talking point. Either way, a narrowly cast article like this seems to be bizarre. Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by Brazil or Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by Russia, etc. are redlinks for a reason. Put this out of its misery. jps (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.

Will be AfDing Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States for similar reasons. jps (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - well-sourced using Reuters, The NYTimes, WaPo, BBC, Guardian, WSJ, Time (UK), and others of similar quality, passes WP:GNG, not a POVFork, but a necessary spin-off. We don't consider WP:DONTLIKEIT a valid reason for deletion, especially when it involves a highly publicized controversy that is under an ongoing investigation by WHO. Put this AfD out of its misery and snow close it. Atsme 💬 📧 20:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC) ^{Add the underlined for clarity. 01:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC) and 2nd underlined list of sources 14:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Note to closer: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States because the same principal applies here but more so considering WHO is investigating the earliest known cases of COVID-19 which occurred in China, the latter of which is verifiable in numerous RS. We can simply add a wikilink to the main page from the #China section in the list as was done for the US section. This article needs to be a stand alone because of China's notability as the suspected country of origin for the virus. Atsme 💬 📧 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This looks like a good case of WP:CFORK the main article is very large and it is good that sub articles are branched off. OP, i will oppose your USA AfD for the same reason if it comes. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A valid WP:CFORK works by spinning off a section into a new article with a {{main}} template link from the old summary-style section back to the main article. That is manifestly not the case here. These pages are just being created by WP:POVPUSH or for some other purpose I can only surmise. jps (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to copy a summary of the China article into a section in the main article. If you think there are specific instance of POVPUSH then raise it on the talk page. I dont agree that deletion is a valid recourse for the problems you are raising. see WP:PRESERVE Walrus Ji (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. There is no place to put this kind of hastily stitched together material because the article out of which it was ostensibly spun out of details the misinformation point-by-point rather than trying to make some overarching point about country provenance. If the article were organized by country, that would be one thing. But it's not because this sort of approach is one that is novel and essentially being invented by Wikipdia editors rather than reflecting the analysis of outside sources. jps (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTPERFECT. This page is a work in progress and I'm in the process of adding more content from reliable sources. Trust me, there is plenty more where this came from, and there are now details emerging about China's false case counts. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRAFT, then, if you think this is a work-in-progress. Right now, the article is nearly a WP:POLEMIC and is also pushing certain WP:FRINGE theories without context. jps (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning on the US version of this article. CUPIDICAE💕 21:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT Delete While the subject matter might be notable enough to FORK, the main author seems to heavily POV pushing in the article (ex. the completely unsourced negative lede), and got topic banned last week from writing about the lab leak theory. This article seems to be toeing the line heavily on the spirit of that ban, if not crossing it. TNT'ing the article seems to be the best option here, with no prejudice for re-creation. Jumpytoo Talk 22:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Typical POV fork. STSC (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any relevant information (subject to normal considerations of WP:WEIGHT) into COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China. This article looks like a classic WP:POVFORK, as others have noted above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thucydides411, I believe Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments#China to be the best target for merging. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename back to Chinese Government Disinformation on Covid-19 or Disinformation on COVID-19 by Chinese government, which is the same. That originally created page would be a legitimate sub-page of Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and not a fork. Nothing prevents from creating such sub-pages by country, i.e. by China, by Russia, etc. What a hell? People first rename valid page to a ridiculous title (the current one), and then argue that a page with such title must be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename back to Chinese Government Disinformation on Covid-19 or Disinformation on COVID-19 by Chinese government, as suggested by My very best wishes. Disinformation and misinformation are not the same thing. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ScrupulousScribe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Delete or Merge. This topic already exists at Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments#China. The content in the "By Governments#China" article existed first, and is stable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is such big section, but it could be better served as a separate page. I am not sure though such pages should exist for other countries. This is special case. The pandemic originated in China, but the government tells it did not [5]. Some say it could come even from Russian VECTOR -> [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can do the China section the same way the section on the United States was done, but it doesn't make sense for the originating country to be a short section while the US has its own stand alone page. It leaves the impression of a political bent rather than a NPOV. The same applies to all the Delete and merge comments and should be noted by the closer. Atsme 💬 📧 11:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Atsme and closer. I've been involved in the splitting/spin off discussions for this article before. As can be seen here, we were discussing spinning off USA purely due to its size. We didn't discuss spinning off China (and ended up leaving it) because it was smaller than the USA section. Hopefully this is strong evidence of a valid CFORK (for USA) and strong evidence against POV. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge, into Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A lot of the article is just POV/speculation and not significant enough to stand on its own. Authoritative (upcoming) results from the WHO investigations are the ones that deserve more coverage. No News ! 06:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newfraferz87: Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments might be a better target for merging. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atsme. China's special status, due to the fact it originated there and the CCP have directed disinformation campaigns at their own citizens, justifies this special page, just as such pages might be justified for other countries, like the USA and Brazil, where intense government disinformation campaigns have been directed at their own citizens. -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' not seeing any glaring issues...... all those working on the main article are trying to condense it's size as per our policy...plus.WP:Does deletion help?--Moxy 🍁 17:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article is absurdly long and broad. Creation of a sub-article such as this one is helpful to keeping the main one down to a sane size. Additionally, there is a lot of high-quality sourcing on this topic. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: from what I can tell, the article will only get longer and more complex. Normchou ^💬 01:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently important in its own right, due the abundance of material- - there is too much misinformation elating to Covid to deal with in a single article. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the level of misinformation from China on many issues, including well-sourced material about COVID, it's reasonable to have a separate article. Arcturus (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is an attack page, and we need something more than journalistic reports to accuse a government. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 02:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- QueerEcofeminist, what other sources do you propose? We use RS here, and they include, and are often primarily, "journalistic reports". BTW, you've been here long enough to know better than to call this an WP:Attack page". Don't misuse terms. -- Valjean (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per @My very best wishes:. The other name flows better and this is a fine sub-article. Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by governments, per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic by the United States. (Though the problem is more severe for that article, this one is also effectively a POVFORK because it's devoted solely to negative information about the Chinese government's COVID-19 communication.) Also, this is a relatively short article, and the information would fit comfortably in the relevant section of the main article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has valuable info that qualifies it to be on EN:WIKI Jenyire2 (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the page has morphed into a collection of various conspiracy theories about China and criticisms of various aspects of China's response to the pandemic, rather than an article about misinformation by the Chinese government. One example is the prominent inclusion of an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory from China's Twitter equivalent, Weibo, about the number of urns shipped to funeral homes in Wuhan. Never mind that there's never been any evidence that the Weibo conspiracy theorists' wild claims about death figures were correct, the existence of this theory is now being used to imply that China's National Health Commission's figures were misinformation. This conspiracy theory was championed by a number of US politicians, including Tom Cotton. It's ironic that a page nominally about misinformation by China now contains what is likely misinformation targeting China. To me, this just confirms my earlier suspicions that this page is just a WP:POVFORK. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:08, 30 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Michael Chekhov Association

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

promotional and non-notable. Almost all references are from its own web page, or the site of a university that offers the course. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Unit Records

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

Article has no reliable references and I found little better in my search; it does not appear to have had any notable releases either. The only mention that I could find that was more than just a passing mention was this interview, which ironically states that the company has invested heavily in an online presence. Aside from that we just have Discogs, Facebook, Deezer, Mixcloud and other self-published stuff. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP from what I can see. The article appears to have been started by the founder of the record label as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tagged for sources since 2007. –Cupper52^Discuss! 21:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Cupper52. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another GNG failure. SK2242 (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet notability guidelines. Lesliechin1 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No evidence passes GNG -Xclusivzik (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP requirements for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no WP:SIGCOV here Jenyire2 (talk) 10:04, 29 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 delete. G7 - author requested deletion FASTILY 23:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yacine Hadji

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

71 minutes of football on the Greek top tier is not enough when failing Wikipedia guidelines otherwise. Geschichte (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing found in a ProQuest search and a French focused search and the single source in the article itself is nowhere near enough for GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 25 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 List of FC Basel players. This seems like the best decision, no real indication of GNG, but a plausible search term and the player is noted in the wider list article. If GNG can be shown at a later date I've no problem with someone being bold and undoing this edit. Fenix down (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birger Persson

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

1 game of football in 1912 is nowhere near enough when failing Wikipedia guidelines otherwise. Geschichte (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dear friends, this kind of discussion about events that took place over 100 years ago is somewhat objectionable and disconcerting. Yes, one proven league match in two seasons is not very many, but then the season had only 14 league matches, but then many more friendly games. In the text it states he also played friendly games. Friendly games also took time to organise and the travel to get there was not just sit in your car and drive there quickly. In most matches we cannot prove which players were involved, because the records no longer exist Aarau-FCB, FCB-YB, Stella-FCB, FCB-Biel, Aarau-FCB, YB-FCB, FCB-Stella, OB-FCB, Bern-FCB and Biel-FCB and that is 10 examples of the 14 league games in the 1910–11 season. FCB-Nordstern, LcdF-FCB, Sporting-FCB, Biel-FCB, FCB-Biel, YB-FCB in the season 1911–12. This article about the player Birger Persson is a small part of the history of the club FC Basel and if deleted, would smaller my attempt to document the club's history. Please take this into account when voting for or against deletion. Please do not destroy the club's history just because a few 100 year old match records are no longer at hand. In adition to all this, a notification from you abou this AFD on my talk page would have been honorable. Geetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huligan0 For these low-bar players, you might be better off combining them into a list. Govvy (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the positive suggestion. --Huligan0 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing in one game should never be considered enough for an article, sort of like how having one significant role in a notable production is not enough to have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement I've spent an evening analysing the problem. My mistake was that I did not pay enough attention to the fact that many records from before World War I either no longer exist or are incomplete. I was working backwards in time and by players with more seasons, a couple of missing matches did not have that much of an affect. I have now modified the article, removed that statistics and replaced them with a footnote, have also added slightly modified pros and a different ref. I will await your feedback before adding further pre-war players. Greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of FC Basel players - very, very little is known about this player and it seems very unlikely that they can pass WP:GNG; I would prefer redirect to deletion as it's a plausible search term and it looks like they didn't play for any other club. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with a redirect. Giant Snowman 21:29, 31 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 List of FC Basel players. This seems like the best decision, no real indication of GNG, but a plausible search term and the player is noted in the wider list article. If GNG can be shown at a later date I've no problem with someone being bold and undoing this edit. Fenix down (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Buss

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

1 game of football in 1916 is nowhere near enough when failing Wikipedia guidelines otherwise. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dear friends, this kind of discussion about events that took place over 100 years ago is somewhat objectionable and disconcerting. Yes, one proven league match in a few seasons is not very many, but then the season had only 14 league matches, but then many more friendly games. In the text it states he also played friendly games. Friendly games also took time to organise and the travel to get there was not just sit in your car and drive there quickly. In most matches we cannot prove which players were involved, because the records no longer exist: FCB-Nordstern, LcdF-FCB, Sporting-FCB, Biel-FCB, FCB-Biel, YB-FCB in the season 1911–12. This article about the player Ernst Buss is a small part of the history of the club FC Basel and if deleted, would smaller my attempt to document the club's history. Please take this into account when voting for or against deletion. Please do not destroy the club's history just because a few 100 year old match records are no longer at hand. In adition to all this, a notification from you abou this AFD on my talk page would have been honorable. Geetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should no more create articles on one game players than we should about 1 film actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement I've spent an evening analysing the problem. My mistake was that I did not pay enough attention to the fact that many records from before World War I no longer exist or are incomplete. I was working backwards in time and by players with more seasons, a couple of missing matches did not have that much of an affect. I have now modified the article, removed that statistics and replaced them with a footnote, have also added slightly modified pros and a different ref. I will await your feedback before adding further pre-war players. Greetings
Redirect to List of FC Basel players as a valid alternative to deletion here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with a redirect. Giant Snowman 21:29, 31 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 List of FC Basel players. This seems like the best decision, no real indication of GNG, but a plausible search term and the player is noted in the wider list article. If GNG can be shown at a later date I've no problem with someone being bold and undoing this edit. Fenix down (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Flück

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

1 game of football in 1914 is nowhere near enough when failing Wikipedia guidelines otherwise. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dear friends, this kind of discussion about events that took place over 100 years ago is somewhat objectionable and disconcerting. Yes, one proven league match in two seasons is not very many, but then the season had only six league matches (it was , but then many more friendly games. In the text it states he also played friendly games. Friendly games also took time to organise and the travel to get there was not just sit in your car and drive there quickly. In most matches we cannot prove which players were involved, because the records no longer exist: FCB-Nordstern, LcdF-FCB, Sporting-FCB, Biel-FCB, FCB-Biel, YB-FCB in the season 1911–12. Plus Biel-FCB in the season 1914–15. This article about the player Walter Flück is a small part within the history of the club FC Basel and if deleted, would smaller my attempt to document the club's history. Please take this into account when voting for or against deletion. Please do not destroy the club's history just because a few 100 year old match records are no longer at hand. In adition to all this, a notification from you abou this AFD on my talk page would have been honorable. Geetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time we once and for all reject the absurdity of one game notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement I've spent an evening analysing the problem. My mistake was that I did not pay enough attention to the fact that many records from before World War I no longer exist or are incomplete. I was working backwards in time and by players with more playing seasons, a couple of missing matches did not have that much of an affect. I have now modified the article, removed that statistics and replaced them with a footnote, have also added slightly modified pros and a different ref. I will await your feedback before adding further pre-war players. Greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of FC Basel players as a valid alternative to deletion here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with a redirect. Giant Snowman 21:29, 31 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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaul Bassi

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

Insufficient evidence of meeting WP:PROF DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: You removed the deletion banner from the article with the edit summary "my error", but it was restored by a bot. Did you intend to withdraw this AfD, or should it continue? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to withdraw the afd--3 academic books, with a RS review and head of a center--I has not initially recognized the Italian academic publishers.

(and I thought my revert would have removed the afd part also. I don'y know how to protect against bots like this. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India Get Your Business Online

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

A defunct initiative with no lasting significance. Media coverage is limited to routine reporting of program launch. M4DU7 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, zero coverage since launch. SK2242 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the company aside from its launch. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunct, fails GNG, and apparently not even successful. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable subject. Performed a search for reliable independent secondary sources but could not find useful sources. Luciapop (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Santosh L (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Superastig, asides the launch also I can’t seem to find in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources that would warrant an article at this moment. Celestina007 (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Ar Rashid (writer)

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

Non notable writer and translator. I did google search but didn't find anything notable. No significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. There are some refs in the article but they all are saying the same thing & are very similar. At the end they also contain word like PR. they are probably paid news. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m pretty sure this was deleted under a different title a couple of months ago. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mccapra, I think you're right: an article called Harun Ar Rashid was created on 14th January 2021 by the same user and speedy deleted after few hours (see [7]). NJD-DE (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK in that case there may have been multiple recreations by different (??) editors using similar names, because the one I remember was definitely last year, maybe October or November. I can't see deleted articles so can't be sure, but it was striking that the young (and apparently very persistent) Bangladeshi author had the same name as the medieval caliph. Mccapra (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing indicates that he is actually a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - translators can be notable if there are independent sources writing about them, this isn't the case with Harun Ar Rashid, though Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark LaNeve

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

A WP:BEFORE search does show subject of article does indeed have google hits but all are press releases or are primary sources thus falls short of WP:GNG which makes us to understand sources must be independent of the subject. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a businessman at a level that does not lead to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. Marketing VPs are dime a dozen, and even at a large company such as Ford, are not really notable. They get passing mentions because they are interviewed about the introduction of new products. Unless they develop radically new or unusual products (i.e., Country Time, Ford Edsel, or Meow Mix) there is nothing really creative about the job. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 29 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 deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sajad Shingali

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

Contested PROD. Subject does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Article appears to be an autobiography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, the subject is not notable, and in any case it is a really bad article. Java Hurricane 02:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bence Bakos

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

Technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL with 83 mins of professional football back in the 08/09 season but, as almost 100 recent AfDs have shown, this is only a presumption of notability. The subject fails WP:GNG and so deletion should still be considered. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass the GNG.Stangpa (talk) 17:28, 31 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 Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel. There's clear consensus here that standalone articles aren't justified. There isn't clear consensus as to a target for a redirect: I have used the more popular option, but further discussion as to that point may be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SS-Oberabschnitt Süd and similar

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are all stubs substantially identical to the one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel, and they share the same problems: they are sourced only to a unreliable source (Mark C. Yerger), and they are created by OberRanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been banned for fabricating sources (including apparently in the "Weichsel" article). Sandstein 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge? ... on the presumption that some or all of these things existed and might be corporately notable, possibly even treated in sources beyond the one source on which the articles all rely at present. Otherwise Delete. GPinkerton (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would possibly redirect all to Allgemeine-SS. –Cupper52^Discuss! 19:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) -- If these really were divisional commands in the sense of an army division (between brigade and corps), they ought to be notable. SS used titles differing from the equivalent army ones, so that I regard this as credible, but I do not know. In theri present state at the very least the articles need to be heavily tagged. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they weren't "divisional commands in the sense of an army division", because the "general SS" wasn't a fighting force. These were apparently not much more than administrative areas, not independently operational units. And "ought to be notable" is neither here nor there; the question is: are they really? That question is decided by the usual criterion: individual in-depth coverage in multiple high-quality sources. (Before anybody cites WP:MILUNIT again: even that essay acknowledges that that's ultimately the only valid criterion and that no general rule about what types of units can normally be expected to be notable can actually provide a criterion of what is.) So far, we haven't really got anything. Even the single, decidedly low-quality source that is ostensibly cited (and in fact mis-cited) in all of these articles (Yerger), contains not more about most of them than routine listings of basic factoids, such as dates of formation and names of commanders. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to suitable parent article (per above argument); nothing substantial to merge since everything in the current articles is unreliable and probably fake, given who wrote them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this source (in Czech, reliable I'd say), SS-Oberabschnitt was a highly ranked "territorial unit". There is a lot of information at G-books and in other sources, at least from what I've seen in Czech. The best option is creating one parent stand alone article SS-Oberabschnitt and merging all the relevant info in it. Then redirect individual articles listed above in this AfD. Just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SS-Oberabschnitt redirects to Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel, which would be an appropriate home for these topics (and a possible redirect target). But we can't merge any of the existing content because it is not verifiable, as explained above. Sandstein 15:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What we have now is not perfect and I'm trying to offer better "encyclopedic solution". I belive there is enough material in reliable sources in multiple languages to create a decent article exclusively about the SS-Oberabschnitt, possibly mentioning also a list of its "branches". [8]. Deleting just because someone was sloppy or cheated us is continuing sloppiness. Just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be material in reliable sources about these topics, and if there is, a new SS-Oberabschnitt article could be written from scratch, or perhaps Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel should first be expanded with it. But the present content cannot be used for this purpose because it is by an unreliable editor and from an unreliable source. Sandstein 14:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel – Yeager's book is referenced there so the citation won't be lost – any new reliable sources can be added to the "Units and commands of the Schutzstaffel" article – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I knew Mark Yerger in real life. For what its worth, he was not a revisionist historian and, while some of his books on the Waffen-SS were rather slanted, the work he wrote on the Allgemeine-SS is essentially just an index of these commands with detailed lists of their leaders and operational years. To dismiss his book out of hand seems not to be in order. As for the article, best to just merge into a new article about the SS Senior Districts. I should also add, the "Ostland" Allgemeine-SS unit mentioned in this list was connected to the Higher and SS Police Command in Latvia which murdered tens of thousands of Jews. That alone might justify keeping that as a stand alone article or merging it to some appropriate Holocaust related article. -2601:152:4001:4460:3869:F967:294C:2B4B (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, there's OberRanks socking again. Range now blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:10, 3 February 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 deleted by User:Widr via WP:A7 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masih Jafarzadeh

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

Fails WP:GNG Venusecxces (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venusecxces (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete was created not long ago. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:G11; it was tagged as such but was inappropriately removed. The sources all appear to be written by Jafarzadeh and the article is written solely to promote. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Ayurvedic Medical Association

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

An alt medicine organisation, with no remarkable achievement or coverage to merit an article on Wikipedia. Lacks significant coverage in third party media. The AMA journal article has a single passing mention. The sourcing does not rise to the standard set by WP:ORGCRIT. In addition, due to the nature of the organization, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are relevant, so there need to be strong sources than what is available to allow articles on this topic. Created by a possible WP:COI user. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also to say, the username of the user who created the page was called Joshgreene and the article is also promotional. Fails WP:NCOMPANY and WP:GNG obviously as well.–Cupper52^Discuss! 18:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and the fact that the original version is basically the same as their website's "About" page. It's possible in principle that that was a reverse copyvio, but let's not kid ourselves. Obvious advertisement is obvious. XOR'easter (talk) 20:36, 24 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) 07:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Katharine & Shadwell Trust

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG - I couldn't find any reliable sources online (only things written by the organization itself). From what it looks like by the creator's username (the initials of this organization), I would assume this was made by a WP:UPE. Whisperjanes (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should have been speedied 13 years ago, almost blatant ad that fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 18:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

California Association of Ayurvedic Medicine

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

An alt medicine organisation, with no remarkable achievement or coverage to merit an article on Wikipedia. Lacks significant coverage in third party media. The sourcing does not rise to the standard set by WP:ORGCRIT. In addition, due to the nature of the organization, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are relevant, and there need to be strong sources than what is available to allow articles on this topic. Created by a possible WP:COI user. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition, the "goals" were copied from their website. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete state branches of even important mainstream national organizations are not generally notable, so this one most certainly is not. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. There are notable Ayurvedic organizations. This isn't one of them. This appears to be an organization (or possibly a single person) who is lobbying to change the fact that the practice of Ayurvedic medicine is illegal in the state of California. The only Ayurvedic practitioners in California are either [A] saying that they offer Ayurvedic medicine while actually offering something else, or [B] new popups that operate for a short period of time before the authorities shut them down. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 24 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 USS Crouter (DE-11). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hanna Crouter

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Crouter (DE-11). Fails WP:SOLDIER (CDR posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ship article and redirect per Mztourist. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Crouter (DE-11) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 15:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we consider the actual conditions under which a ship was named after him they in no way indicate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Crouter (DE-11), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into USS Crouter (DE-11) per Timothy. Cavalryman (talk) 12:04, 31 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 USS Cross. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Cushing Cross Jr.

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. A warship being named after someone is all but WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and even if we discount the hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of destroyers that were named after "they died in the line of duty and that's the only thing of note in their career" people (which the ship named after him was), having a ship named after you is the same thing as having a building named after you. It's not an "award or honor" in the context that terminology means, and notability is not inherited from the ship. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Cross, the ship named after him, as he does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, or WP:SOLDIER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Cross. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Cross per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a ship named after you is not a signifcant honor when they are being churned out left, right and center with the odd view that they have to be named for a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Cross, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Cross per The Bushranger. Cavalryman (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect to USS Cross based on the points above. Luciapop (talk) 20:52, 3 February 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 List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William W. Creamer

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fuerwea (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fuerwea has been globally locked. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor" and ship wasn't even completed) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge but it still will need trimming. // Timothy :: talk 15:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by user:Andrew Davidson If not, Redirect and MERGE to VT-8#Midway, which is a better fit than the generic List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. In fact, I have found lots of sources that support that narrative and resolution. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:08, 25 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 (☎) 12:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II per Mztourist. Cavalryman (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Having a ship named after you is simply a political decision, having nothing to do with notability. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 2 February 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 List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell M. Cox

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor" and the ship was cancelled anyway) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article. I don't believe the target article is suitable but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge to the notes section on the target, which can be undone if a keep outcome happens. // Timothy :: talk 13:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II per above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him.WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II#C, with the pertinent info included in the "notes" section. Not enough SIGCOV to pass notability criteria, and doesn't pass WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 12:11, 31 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 USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108). Daniel (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry L. Corl

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 13:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a ship named after you is not a significant honor under the conditions existing when this naming actually occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Harry L. Corl (APD-108), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 12:13, 31 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 USS Cooner. Daniel (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bunyan Randolph Cooner

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Cooner. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Cooner per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 07:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having one of a group of over 500 ships named after you is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Cooner, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship were named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Cooner, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and merge. My grandmother has a whole street named after her, but she's not notable. Deb (talk) 12:48, 5 February 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 USS Howard F. Clark. Daniel (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Franklin Clark

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Howard F. Clark. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg awarded two DFCs. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Howard F. Clark per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 07:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a ship named after someone considering the actual conditions under which this naming was done does not fit the definition of a significant honor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Howard F. Clark, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Howard F. Clark, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 22:50, 31 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 USS Cates. Consensus is that the subject is not notable, content can be merged from history if desired. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Finnic Cates

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m voting delete. This is essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan C. Haerter. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Cates. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Seaman 2nd class posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Cates per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 06:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Cates, it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Cates, fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:11, 2 February 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 USS Carr (FFG-52). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H. Carr

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Finnic Cates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan C. Haerter. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Carr (FFG-52). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Gunner's mate 3rd class posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Carr (FFG-52) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 06:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Carr (FFG-52), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on many articles, but it does appear here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Carr (FFG-52). Lack of in-depth coverage causes him to fail WP:GNG, and he definitely doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Contrary to the assertions by some, having a ship named after you is not part of any SN guideline, and not cause for automatic notability. I would say merge, but the pertinent data is already in the ship's article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into USS Carr (FFG-52), fails GNG, only a single source provides SIGCOV of the individual. Cavalryman (talk) 01:24, 2 February 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 USS Calcaterra (DE-390). Daniel (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert A. Calcaterra

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Calcaterra (DE-390). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Machinists Mate 1st class posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Calcaterra (DE-390) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." // Timothy :: talk 06:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two sources are not enough to truly pass GNG, and he does not meet the notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Calcaterra (DE-390), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver star/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Calcaterra (DE-390), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:31, 2 February 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ssh..Silence Please

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE. Al link to IMDB is broken and sent on a different movie. Kolma8 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:52, 24 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. Essentially unanimous consensus to delete here and at the talk page move discussion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We Three Kings (parodies)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Parodies are widely mentioned in reliable sources ([9], [10], [11], [12]), however none of these represent significant coverage, or provide the full lyrics such as we have here. The subject is already mentioned in the main article, but there's nothing here to merge, no reliable sources.----Pontificalibus 15:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed at Talk:We Three Kings (parodies)#Requested move 31 December 2020, where there already seems to be consensus for deletion, including from the creator of this new article (which might qualify it for speedy deletion under G7). Perhaps discussion should be continued there, rather than duplicating it here. Station1 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My only reason for creating "... (parodies)" was to get the low-grade, gossip-column parody cruft cleared out from the We Three Kings article. I was concerned that simply deleting that low-grade material from that main article might lead to an edit-war of attrition, so moving it out to the "...(parodies)" location would at least give the option of saying "parody stuff belongs over there, not here". I would support a deletion, but ask that we can consider accompanying that with some sort of statement at the main article that parody stuff doesn't belong. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, if low-grade gossip-column parody cruft doesn't belong in an article, it's unlikely to merit a new article all to itself.----Pontificalibus 15:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I get that. What I was also hoping to achieve was a result at the main We Three Kings article along the lines of "this material should not be re-instated in this article". (If it's not good enough for its own parody article, then neither is it good enough for the main article.) If our decision here is 'delete' (fine with me), can we supplement that with something (e.g. an agreed editing comment) at the main article that says "please do not put parody material here"? Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the argument that "if it's not good enough for its own parody article, then neither is it good enough for the main article" is simply absurd. If reliable sources cover parodies they are good enough to be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, if not in a separate article then as part of the We Three Kings article. And I really don't get who you all are who think that the original is so much more notable than the parodies. Weren't you children once? Didn't you sing "we three kings of Leicester Square" rather than "we three kings of Orient are"? And this is not low-grade, is not confined to gossip columns and is not cruft, but is a much more well-established part of (at least English) culture than the latest Internet meme. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that when I was at school (in North-West London in the 1960s and 1970s) the words to the first verse included "how fantastic, no elastic" rather than what is in the article, and this is confirmed by [13]. I don't have time to look further at the moment, but am pretty certain that at least as many people have sung parodies of this carol as the original version, so would be very surprised if they didn't have significant coverage in reliable sources if people could only be bothered to look properly before commenting here. I would have thought that they are better presented in the We Three Kings article, but it seems that some editors are too straight-laced to admit that in popular culture this is a much-parodied carol. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have voted Delete at the other discussion place for this article. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once you take out the one specific parody which has no special significance, what do you have left? Not much, and that's got dubious sourcing. We Three Kings#Parodies says all that's needed. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the discussion in the move request. This is not an article about parodies of We Three Kings, but a collection of dubiously sourced quotes of no utility. BD2412 T 06:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BD2412 - this is not an encyclopedia article about the parodies, using sources that talk about them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 2 February 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) 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Dieter

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

I searched but could not find any significant coverage at all; just passing mentions in match reports and blogs. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and does not meet any Wikipedia notability guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 25 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) 15:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Ellis

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

A footballer with only 7 minutes of football in the W-League that fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as far as I can see. All sources in the article show just passing mentions for Ellis. In my search, I found this routine announcement, this profile page and this short news article. Does not look to pass any Wikipedia guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You sure have a lot of time on your hands to compensate for something... Wish you felt better. Hmlarson (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 25 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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Daliwe

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

Minor artist, fails WP:GNG, only ever did a single piece of artwork StickyWicket (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Dutch Wikipedia article has some good sources. Moreover, the artist is found in encyclopedias, including Benezit, Grove Art, and Larousse. Curiocurio (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a search finds many mentions, which is a strong indication of notability seeing as he died 604 years ago. Meets WP:ANYBIO per Curiocurio. Possibly (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep article can be expanded based on the Dutch version. Plenty of sources exist. Vexations (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above. Setreis (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It does not matter if he only made one known existant work; what matters is notability, and this artist has achieved that bar as per his entries in Dictionaries of artists, encyclopedias, and the sources that others have mentioned above. Netherzone (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look, an editor gets some of his articles nominated for deletion, and now makes revenge nominations here and here against someone else who did the same. Speedy keep. Fram (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note According to WP:NPERSON a person should have had “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources”. No prove for that is given in the article. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SportsOlympic, the sources don't need to be cited in the article, they need to exist. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. See WP:BEFORE Vexations (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I’m just stating that there is no prove at this moment that these sources exist. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you consider a separate entry in Grove Art Online, and more specifically a separate entry in the Grand Larousse encyclopédique, one of the most famous encyclopedias (basically the French version of the Britannica) not "significant coverage in ..."? Or do you dispute that these sources (and the Benezit and so on) exist? Never mind that his work has been reprinted in 1964 and in 1987, with in 1987 a second volume of commentary[14]. Or that he got an exhibition in 2002/2003[15] (with reprints on that site of the Larousse and Grove info, but also from other sources). I have no idea what your objection is (except revenge for my nominations of some articles you created), but it really is completely baseless and doesn't reflect well on you. Fram (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - SportsOlympic, These exist: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]
      Vexations (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your list. Fram (talk · contribs) pushes and blames everybody to add original sources and always states database entries are not good enough. And see his own article, haha. Fram would argue about your list in an AfD; apart from the larousse source these are all database sources. No prove of in debt sources about the subject. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you even know what a database is? Or, for that matter, the difference between "depth" and "debt"? If you want to attack my work, perhaps choose a better target than an AfD with unanimous keep votes and plenty of in-depth sources, including complete books about his work. Fram (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - SportsOlympic, I'm leaving your comment here because Fram already replied, even though I have every right to remove it as a blatant violation of our No personal attacks policy, because derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.
    Additionally, the fact that you admit that you contributed to this AfD as a way to get back at Fram for some perceived slight means your contribution here ought to be disregarded as motivated by malice. This needs to stop right now. Vexations (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject can be found in several notable encyclopedias, including a Grand Larousse encyclopédique entry. Passes WP:GNG. ExRat (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Smeyers, Maurits (1998). Vlaamse miniaturen van de 8ste tot het midden van de 16de eeuw : de middeleeuwse wereld op perkament. Leuven: Davidsfonds. pp. 187–188. ISBN 90-6152-598-5. OCLC 782834751.
^ Larousse, Éditions. "Encyclopédie Larousse en ligne - Jacques Daliwe". www.larousse.fr (in French). Retrieved 2021-01-26.
^ Scheller, Robert W; Hoyle, Michael (1995). Exemplum: model-book drawings and the practice of artistic transmission in the Middle Ages (ca. 900 - ca. 1450). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. pp. 233, 235. ISBN 978-90-5356-130-0.
^ Fowler, Caroline O (2019). The art of paper: from the Holy Land to the Americas. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-24602-5.
^ Delaissé, L.-M.-J (1966). "Une contribution capitale à l'étude du « style international »: l'édition de l'album d'esquisses de Jaques Daliwe". Scriptorium (in French). 20 (2): 281–284. ISSN 0036-9772. OCLC 5801106062.
^ Kreuter-Eggemann, Helga (1964). Das Skizzenbuch des "Jaques Daliwe" (in German). München: Bruckmann.
^ Ring, Grete (1949). A century of French painting, 1400-1500. Internet Archive. London: Phaidon Press. pp. 201, 244.

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 draftity, unsourced BLP. Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Andrade

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

No sources cited at all. Fails WP:GNG Jenyire2 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was elected a member of the National Congress 2011-16 see here and so is notable. The article just needs proper sourcing, which is what we have draft space for. Mccapra (talk) 14:22, 24 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) 07:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soufis Subri

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

Biography of a recently deceased mayor that does not meet WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I created this article two months ago, I noticed that Regents (Bupati) have their own article, so I thought Mayor (Walikota) deserve his own article too because in Indonesia Regents and Mayors are in the same level. But if it actually does not meet WP:NPOL so I will support to delete this article. Thank you for inform me and regards --Tensa Februari (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hi Tensa Februari. Some mayors are notable, if they are in charge of very large cities or have some specific reason for being significant. I don’t think this mayor is, but let’s see what other editors think. Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, even though I am the creator of this biography but after read the nominator's argument and WP:NPOL, I akcnowledge my mistake when created this article. --Tensa Februari (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vice-mayor of a city is not an "inherently" notable role that automatically guarantees the right to a Wikipedia article — he could potentially get an article if it were possible to write a substantive article that delved into properly sourced analysis of the significance of his work in the role (specific projects he undertook, specific effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth), but he's not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because one or two sources announcing his death can be offered to support a two-sentence stub which goes no further than saying that he existed. It takes a lot more than this to get a person at this level of political office over WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:06, 27 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) 22:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of smartphones with HD Voice support

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

I might be missing something, but this just looks like a list of phones that happen to share one feature in common. The vast majority of this is unsourced, but the main issue is why is this function notable to justify a stand-alone list? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless list. Wideband audio has been around for a decade so this may have been a novelty once but is now common place. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia, Please do not delete this article. I do understand your points that a lot of phones do support HD voice now, which is a good thing, but I fail to understand how this is a problem. Is anyone personally being negatively affected by this article existing? Is anyone losing sleep at night over it? Does it take up a large amount of server space? This article is widely used as a point of reference on forums discussing this technology, and for answering technical support questions such as when someone asks if they can use a particular phone (such as if it’s an older model or a lesser known model from a different country) with a certain carrier that requires VoLTE. Where’s the harm in leaving this article alone? Isn’t that the point of Wikipedia, to be a point of reference of knowledge and information? I’ve personally spent a lot of time updating and tweaking this list over the years and it would be a shame for it all to be lost. Sincerely, Me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.110.251 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read WP:AADD. Can you give some policy-based rationales on why this list should exist? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Nothing overly encyclopedic about listing every single device with this technology. Ajf773 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wideband audio#Deployment and use as a tool to expand the coverage there, giving examples and dates. It's obviously necessary to avoid WP:OR in doing this but the information is already in the specific articles and if we just use dates that are sourced in these articles it should be possible. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most smartphones these days have such technology so it is not necessary for a list and offers no encyclopedic value. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:43, 4 February 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.

Well, I am appalled at this selfish deletion. This is information I am looking for, which could have been very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.185.122 (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XCrosscheckx

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

Just another unnotable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German hardcore punk band. The article doesn't cite any sources, just unreliable external links. Might I add that the other wikis aren't better in terms of sourcing. The band's Allmusic page is blank, and the album page is blank as well, only containing a track listing and user reviews. Couldn't find anything that establishes notability. They are present in the usual junk sites like youtube, databases, lyrics sites, streaming links, retail sites and blogs, but nowhere else. No reliable sources are available, therefore I think they are unnotable. Additionally, I might mention that COI / promotion is also apparent as the article was created by a user whose edits mainly revolved around this article, same applies for the interwiki links: at least on two WP projects, the article was created by IPs who hasn't edited anything else, and on the other two WP projects the article was also created by people who hasn't edited much else other than this. So an unnotable band is present on more wikis without any reliable sources. Nice.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per rationale by GhostDestroyer100. Article Fails WP:NBAND. Celestina007 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Celestina and GhostDestroyer100. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable article with clear vanity/promo concerns as well Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally no notable mentions, refer to WP:GARAGE pinktoebeans ^(talk) 15:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 20:05, 30 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) 14:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Yadav

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

Non-notable person. Has been tendentiously moved into mainspace by the WP:SPA author (whom I blocked for failing to respond to a paid editing query), who also contested a PROD. MER-C 11:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by MER-C, subject was of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of his roles would give him a presumption of notability under WP:NSPORTS and I'm not seeing enough for GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MER-C fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, probably WP:UPE. Ravensfire (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:GNG, and WP:MILL. No insult, but a physiotherapist to an Olympic team is not notable. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 29 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 delete. Speedy deleted, G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Boongalings Cabayi (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deparo High School

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, local coverage. No sources in the article. The author may have a connection to the subject. // Timothy :: talk 09:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 24 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 Pudsey#Public transport. Sandstein 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pudsey bus station

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

Only coverage is from West Leeds Dispatch, Yorkshire Evening Post, and LeedsLive. Local news by itself is not good enough for WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are two flaws in the nomination. One there is no reference to local papers being unacceptable on the page containing the tag WP:GNG. Secondly, this is a regional paper not a local paper. Read the {{AFD help}}, notability is a matter of protecting us from hoaxes, bias and non- verifiable articles. If the building could be verified but has not been yet, we err on the side of WP:AGF. Google to see. ClemRutter (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are reasons against deleting. When to not use deletion process?
- Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.@
- Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.
- Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.
I was tempted to do a quick google to see if other references were easy to find- this should have been done before the AfD proposal. Dozens. Award winning formwork this is an architecture article too. {{AFD help}}- ClemRutter (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already did a BEFORE search. I have no idea why you decided to give me a list of reasons not to nominate something at AfD when I clearly didn’t nominate for those reasons. Also WP:LOCALINT which claims local news is good enough by itself for notability is a failed proposal. Here is the Yorkshire Evening Post article for reference. It’s 3 sentences. Not even significant coverage. So 2 run of the mill local news articles plus that award thing is not good enough. Notability is also something that keeps out stuff barely anyone is interested in and/or has had little relevance or attention. SK2242 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Problem with a before search is that it only covers what Google wants you to see. So whichever news organisations it has black listed (or vice versa) don't appear. Only a fraction of reliable sources can be found online, the vast majority, particularly pre-2000, are only in printed form.

Per another recent AfD you initated, you appeared to refuse to accept notable notable industry sources such as Buses and Bus & Coach Professional stating I don’t seeany evidence of significant coverage, Are you expecting a double page feature article in a national newspapeer to demonstrate notability? That's not likely to happen. Local newspapers are fine to report events that are never going to be significant enough to make the national press, WP:LOCALINT states Local sources are considered to be reliable sources. In much the same way that industry publications are fine to be used. Lilporchy (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SK2242: Two comments on WP:LOCALINT:
A failed proposal is one where there was no consensus to adopt it. That doesn't necessarily mean there was consensus for the opposite.

I think you're misreading the proposal in any case. Pudsey bus station would come under this proposal's definition of a "local interest". It then says it is likely that a lot of local interests have received coverage in more than one of these [local] sources. This would seemingly meet the general notability guideline—"seemingly" as distinct from "actually". Subsequently, it goes on to say In order for a local interest to be notable, it must, to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself (emphasis mine). That is, it's attempting to impose a higher bar for inclusion than WP:GNG. So it seems the failed proposal is concurring with your argument here. (Looking at the talk page, it seems most objections to the proposal were to the idea of this higher bar for inclusion, or were procedural objections based on the wording.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SK2242: Can you explain what a 'BEFORE search' actually is. I use a full DuckDuckGo search and then Yahoo and occasional Google, 'BEFORE search' has passed me by, it does seem to give a very poor set of results, and certainly not fit for purpose. ClemRutter (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ClemRutter: It means a search in accordance with WP:BEFORE, which is the part of the main WP:Articles for deletion page suggesting checks you should do before making a nomination. It's not a special type of search. :-) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOCALINT tried to set a lower bar than GNG as it still had the same requirements but said its fine if theres no national interest. I’d also like a list of the sources found that makes this meet GNG. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SK2242, I didn't find sources beyond those already found: I think those are a borderline pass of WP:GNG but I'm not sure, which is why I haven't !voted. Could you point to which part of WP:GNG says that sources have to be of national interest? I can't find it. Thanks! YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 16:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification of the jargon - good to know that Google aren't been threatened with closure yet. I search on the term and 'Yorkshire Post' and 'Telegraph and Argus'- here is one you might not have found. BBC Leeds. Bus station designs do have a wide interest in local government circles, and we have many articles and many categories. To me there is interest in the town planning, architecture, the financing, the operators and the routes. Most of these articles have been written by knowledgeable bus and rail buffs and are scantily referenced. ClemRutter (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge to Pudsey#Public transport as alternative to deletion (switched !vote): Clearly fails WP:GNG and WPNBUILD. Article does not have sources showing WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that contains SIGCOV. Mentions in routine run of the mill news stories do not demonstrate notability. Article makes no claim towards and there are no sources showing this meets NBUILD for historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.

Source evaluation table

Source	Evaluation
Pudsey Bus Station West Yorkshire Metr…	From West Yorkshire Metro - not WP:IS WP:SIGCOV
New Pudsey bus station work begins -…	404 page, appears to be about routine construction, not WP:V, and from other similar stories does not appear to be SIGCOV, just another brief mention in local news.
Bus passengers get new £2.5m station…	3 sentence mention about proposed construction in local news section. Not SIGCOV
Proposed £ 3 million bus station for…	From West Yorkshire Metro - not WP:IS WP:SIGCOV
"Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from …	Propsed traffic regulation from City Council - WP:IS WP:SIGCOV

The sources do not demonstrate notability, they simply demonstrate it existed. Good nomination from SK2242 // Timothy :: t | c | a 02:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for popping by TimothyBlue with your flawed opinion about WP:N. The table is nice and the POVs amusing. It is a good idea to write a few articles similar to the subject- and to read the thread. You will have noticed that you are checking for the existence of references not that they have been used in the article. Keep smiling and discuss this on WP:WikiProject Buses and WP:WikiProject Architecture where it is more likely to be seen. ClemRutter (talk) 10:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The closer and other participants will look at the sources and see there is no SIGCOV from IS RS. Your petty insults and snide comments only reflect badly on you. // Timothy :: t | c | a 11:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pudsey#Public transport as alternative to deletion. The renovation of the bus station should of created more SIGCOV (maybe in an offline newspaper?), if these can be found it could make it a borderline GNG pass. Jumpytoo Talk 01:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pudsey § Public transport per Jumpytoo. Re-evaluating my previous opinion (which I can't see that I ever made a bolded !vote, but if I did please strike it; thanks) I think this is, from the sources we've found, a borderline GNG fail; I support merging without prejudice to recreation if more sources are found. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 12:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella boy (2019 film)

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

Hoax, completely fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Chompy Ace 09:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 09:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 09:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably even speedy/soft delete. I wasn't able to find any sources for this short film. Kolma8 (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 777burger ^talk ^contribs 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFILM. No good independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NFILM. I'm seeing no evidence of notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 13:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per WP:G3. Definitely a WP:HOAX. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Completely fails WP:NFILM, WP:GNG and WP:RS, signally it's a WP:HOAX. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 11:59, 27 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. I've moved the article formerly at Valerius Maximus Basilius (urban prefect 319) to this title. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 01:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valerius Maximus Basilius

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

This is one of several articles written by a now-banned user which requires a bit of complicated explanation for why it should be deleted. First, it is pure WP:GENEALOGY in all but the first sentence. Second, this individual is identical with Maximus (praefectus urbi). Third, he may in fact be a mixture of two distinct people.

To this 'Valerius Maximus Basilius' are herein attributed two state offices, each of which the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE, a standard source for a topic like this) assigns instead to two separate individuals, one to a 'Basilius' and the other to a 'Maximus' (this one has his own Wikipedia article already, mentioned above). The PLRE says they are 'perhaps' the same person or brothers, and their father 'may have been' Valerius Maximus (praetorian prefect), who in turn was 'presumably related' to Valerius Maximus Basilius (urban prefect 319) from the previous generation. The pattern of names in the (supposed) family obviously makes the current article name plausible, but the tone seems too speculative to decisively establish the article's subject as a historical individual.

What then, of course, do the article's own sources say? One was added only much after the article was created and mentions only the same Maximus (with the same speculative tone), adding nothing which was already written before. The remaining one, on which the article was based at its inception, is a dubious work of genealogy (Settipani) which makes some bold and sometimes (apparently, by my experience) flatly incorrect statements about family relationships of imperial Roman senators.

To sum up, it's far from certain (perhaps even unlikely) this individual existed in the way his sub-par Wikipedia article describes him, and what can be said about him seems to already be recorded at Maximus (praefectus urbi). Avilich (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, although the article may be in need of work. That the subject is intended to be the Praefectus Urbi between AD 361 and 363 seems apparent, and that makes him inherently notable, even if most of the rest of the information in the article is uncertain. The fact that most of the material is genealogical in nature does not make it unimportant or unreliable, although it might need to be carefully described as speculative. Christian Settipani is cited as a source in the lead paragraph, but looking over the page history it seems to have been the primary source, perhaps accompanied by an inherently unreliable genealogy page that has long since been deleted, the source for which is unknown and probably unknowable, although I suspect it would just have led back to Settipani. This person is certainly found in other reliable sources that suggest the possibility of at least some of the relationships in question: Inge Mennen is cited, and I can see the note on page 127 that mention the subject's possible descent from the late Valerii Messallae, and cites another source that I haven't checked. I didn't find this fellow in PW, but for a variety of reasons I can't conclude anything from that; it's very hard to search for someone whose correct nomenclature is unclear, and who might appear under several different headings or in any of multiple supplements. I don't have access to PLRE, but I did get a snippet view of Settipani, which suggests that the material we're after comes somewhere around pages 229 or 230—my snippet seems to be about this man's supposed father or grandfather. The question is whether Settipani sets these relationships in terms of certainty, probability, or mere possibility—something I can't determine without seeing the original text.

Nonetheless, even if the relationships in question are merely possible, as Mennen describes them, they would bear mentioning. Obviously had the subject not been Praefectus Urbi or held some similarly important Imperial post, such as being governor of Achaea, he might not be notable, and therefore his prospective relationship with the Valerii Messallae would not save this article. But whether the prefect and the governor are the same man, whether we're sure what his correct nomenclature is, and whether his relationship to other important persons has been established by Settipani or others, is claimed to have been established by credible scholars, is probable but unproven, or is merely speculative, it would still be appropriate content for this article, since clearly there are at least a couple of reliable sources that discuss it. His genealogy doesn't make him notable, but because he's notable for other reasons, and because his possible descent is relevant, it can properly be included in this article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This issue here isn't notability – as I said, the praefectus urbi of 361–3 already has its own article, Maximus (praefectus urbi). That Settipani sets these relationships in terms of probability or mere possibility is what I argued above. The obscure governor of Achaea is probably another person, and the nomen 'Valerius' is just assumed. The only Valerius Maximus Basilius we know existed for certain is Valerius Maximus Basilius (urban prefect 319), the supposed grandfather you must have stumbled upon. This article definitely needs a WP:TNT. Avilich (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is almost never the right answer. This is a very short article, and its content would be easily merged into the various persons to whom it applies who have their own articles, as Peterkingiron suggests. If we have articles about the prefect, the supposed father or grandfather, and other people who are likely related to him, the contents should probably be merged into those articles, which should then link to each other—then this title should redirect to the prefect or his homonymous predecessor. That's not the same process as deletion, but it should serve the purpose of this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had wanted to redirect Valerius Maximus Basilius (urban prefect 319) to Valerius Maximus Basilius, whence I started this discussion. If the latter is merged with (say) Maximus (praefectus urbi), you'd have an incorrect name as a redirect and I still wouldn't be able to perform the move. The only thing Wikipedia loses from deleting this article is a brief mention of some obscure guy under an incorrect name serving as proconsul of Achaea (without even a date...), which can easily be recreated (under the right name, Basilius) by a better informed editor than the one who created the subject of this discussion. Avilich (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Melania the Elder. My guess is that we know nothing else about him. Praefect and Proconsul are certainly important posts, but as far as I know, we do not have complete lists of these officeholders, let alone biographies. This article is essentially genealogical. We frequently redirect wives to their husbands. In this case I suggest we do the reverse. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once again. Article's subject is identical with Maximus (praefectus urbi), has basically nothing aside from WP:GENEALOGY, has a wrong title and is blocking a move from another page. Avilich (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was quite a read so if I'm misunderstanding something don't hesitate to correct me. But, this article is meant to represent the person who was Praefectus urbi from 361-363, but what his exact name was is in question because of historically questionable sources, however this article represents the Praefectus urbi during those years and that's his claim to notability and why the article exists. However, there is another article, Maximus (praefectus urbi) that represents this person. Whatever his name may have actually been, we know that he was identified by his peers as "Maximus" so that's what this article article calls him. If I've understood those two facts correctly, then there's already an article for this subject, and anything that can be preserved should be moved to this other already existing article. - Aoidh (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh: you are correct, sorry if I made the whole thing too long. Avilich (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it needed to be a little long to explain the entire thing fully. - Aoidh (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as far as I can tell from this very confusing discussion, this article's content duplicates another article, and since it is not really a plausible search term as there are other Valerius Maximus Basilius', there is no point in a redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or (reluctant) delete There is some material worth salvaging from this article. One is the longer name, Valerius Maximus Basilius, which is typical of the 4th century; but without some source that attests that concatenation existed, it is speculative. (And all 3 name elements were very common in Roman society; it is not safe to assume where one appears the other 2 can be safely deduced.) Inga Mennen is a reliable source, so her suggestion that (Valerius) Maximus is related or descended from Valerius Maximus signo Basilius (the urban prefect of 319) should be saved. (NB -- the Valerius inside the parentheses shows that it is inferred, not attested.) But as for the rest... the fact that this article still contains much of the original author's text makes it very suspect. -- llywrch (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: I've added what I think is salvageable into Maximus (praefectus urbi) – namely, his possible relationship or identification with another Basilius, him being the possible husband of Melania the Elder, his probable relationship with the two Valerii Maximi aforementioned, and the Inge Mennen source. I left out the bold and unsourced claim of his descent from the emperor Augustus' sister. Otherwise, there isn't anything else. Both articles claim their subject to be a nephew of Vulcacius Rufinus (cos. 347), making their identification certain. The current article still needs to be deleted, because the urban prefect of 319 is the only person who we know for sure was called "Valerius Maximus Basilius", and so should be moved to the target which the nominated article currently occupies. I can't do that while this discussion drags onward. Avilich (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: I modified some of that information at Maximus (praefectus urbi): whoever originally added the material from Ammianus Marcellinus botched not only the cite, but some of the content; since I own a copy of that Latin historian's work, I was able to correct it. And Ammianus is the ultimate source for the statement that Maximus was the nephew of Vulcacius Rufinus. (FWIW, I assume Vulcacius was his mother's brother.)

Anyway, the status of this discussion only touches on this article:, so if you want to rewrite the one on Maximus, AFAICS you are free to rewrite the heck out of it. But if you want to convert this article into a redirect to the urban prefect of 319, you may want to check & update the links to this article first: at least one -- part of that banned editor's monomaniacal pursuit to demonstrate Descent from antiquity -- is intended for the urban prefect of 361-363, not the earlier one. -- llywrch (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed most of the links already. The only ones that remain are those of the saints Melania I hear so much about; I was planning to do them after this article is deleted. Avilich (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maximus (praefectus urbi), where the relevant salvagable content has apprently been added. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: you're an admin, so please just close and delete this already. I didn't even copy anything to the other article, I just added similar information from a source not hitherto used. I need the current article's target for another page. Avilich (talk) 17:51, 3 February 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbie Rae

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

Fails WP:SINGER. One article in Grand Strand (The Lifestyle Magazine for the Myrtle Beach Area) isn't going to cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 25 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. — The Earwig ^talk 02:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StaudSoft's Synthetic World

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable sources, and as far as I can tell, the article has only ever cited the game developer's website. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is cited only to primary sources, a search brought up only other primary sources, and since the publisher does not have an article there is no redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly zero hits in contemporary reliable sources via WP:VG/SE, so unlikely to have any significant coverage. IceWelder [✉] 20:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willard, California

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

According to this Press-Enterprise article, "While there used to be a place called Willard, it was never a town, and apparently was never meant to be." The author continues by relating the history of this 4th class post office, and concludes, "Although there was never an actual town of Willard, that is, no map was ever drawn and no lots were ever sold, it showed up on early maps of the area for a sufficient enough time that it was often mistaken as a full-fledged town." It should be clear from this that WP:GEOLAND isn't met. Mangoe (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good source! Could be mentioned in Lake Elsinore. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NGEO, nominator says it all, for it to meet WP:GNG more than the PE article would be required (nothing raised from a quick gsearch), no probs with a mention at Lake Elsinore or Frances Willard. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 1 February 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 echo the closing rationale of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gladys Pearl Baker. There is an argument made here that Ms. Baker Miracle is less notable than her mother, but I do not see it getting enough support to change the outcome. — The Earwig ^talk 02:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berniece Baker Miracle

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

Monroe's half-sister, whose only claim to notability other than that is a book she published a book about being Monroe's sister in the 1990s. I believe there already was a page on her a couple of years ago, but it was deleted because again, she is not notable enough to have her own article. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article was nominated for deletion only a month prior to you nominating it again, and the consensus was to keep. I feel like we're going round in circles here, wasting the time of editors when we could be doing more constructive things. Initially I too was opposed to the creation of the article as it seemed like more centenarian fandom and that she was only known for being a relative of somebody famous. I've changed my mind – the article is well written and sourced for a start. It also demonstrates that Baker Miracle is notable enough in her own right as a memoirist and popular media personality to merit her own article. Baker Miracle's article by no means stands out on Wiki as an exception to a rule, but rather a common occurrence of somebody being in the public eye consistently as a result of being tied to a more known personality. Presidential siblings/parents are often in that category e.g. Nancy Walker Bush Ellis, as are people like Jackie Stallone. I don't see any difference between them and Baker Miracle. Bottom line should be if they're personalities in their own right, regardless of how they got there or who they became known through, they merit an article. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [note that this is partly the same comment I left on the Gladys Pearl Baker article, as the same things apply] Apologies, I was not aware that there had recently been a discussion on possibly deleting this article, my bad! The thing is, these types of articles tend to attract really, really shoddy writing and sourcing, as well as the type of celeb mythology that has little basis on truth. Although it is true that Monroe's mother does have a central place in her 'mythology' and does attract interest, I don't think that's really the case with Baker Miracle. The only time she ever was in the public eye was for a very brief moment when she published a book about Monroe, and AFAIK even then we're not talking about a great deal of publicity or a bestseller. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk)TrueHeartSusie3

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not inherited. She was the half-sister of Marilyn Monroe who, according to the article, only met Monroe later in life, and co-authored one book about Monroe with her daughter in 1994. Her only claim to any sort of notability is being the half-sister of someone famous. ExRat (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jkaharper as a bona fide personality. "Notability is not inherited", like BLP1E, is something often misinterpreted as broader than it really is; "being related to someone famous" is a thing some people are notable for. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP subject who co-wrote the only authorized family memoir on Marilyn. The missing big sister who influenced and connected with twelve year-old Norma Jean. A significant person in the celeb mythology of the cult figure. Existing sources meet GNG. Nobody wants this merged into the MM page. I agree it needs improvement and stewardship. The article as of this datestamp now covers Berniece, Mona, and the book. With the recent Gladys keep close, both articles will serve as appropriate family life subpages for the main page. BusterD (talk) 16:22, 28 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Vincent's Convent School

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

Non-notable school, doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL RationalPuff (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is unreferenced and BEFORE showed nothing. Fails ORGCRIT and GNG. There are database listings, briief mentions, but nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 17:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern High School for Girls

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL RationalPuff (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with our decision that high schools have to be notable there is no justification for having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 11:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG, NSCHOOL, ORGCRIT, Subject lacks IS RS with SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is normal MILL coverage all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 17:23, 29 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. Keep as there is no consensus to delete after 3 weeks. (non-admin closure) Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University

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

There is no good coverage available and I was not able to find any. Fails GNG and any relevant subjective criteria. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. This is exactly the similar AfD case of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dasman_Diabetes_Institute which I have nominated in the last year (May 2020). -Hatchens (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is clearly notable with verified sources. The page should be linked to the Japanese wikipage. Other pages including UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute, Usa Marine Biological Institute has lesser sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOKYO2021 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nagasaki University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs)
Keep: The institute has a longer history than the university itself and is a prestigious research institution (read reference in the article). Please compare each one against the actual policy and not your own preferences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOKYO2021 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TOKYO2021, You've already voted once. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheAafi I can see that I had voted before. Thank you so much for pointing it obviously to me.
Keep: Enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Doesn’t seem like a merge as per Mccapra suggested, would be appropriate as evidently they are not fully own and has own it’s independent history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verseau (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC) — Verseau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 24 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 01:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whippoorwill, Marion County, Kentucky

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

I don't think this one meets WP:GEOLAND. GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, but this Whippoorwill isn't in his Marion County directory and isn't in his index. Coordinates show an isolated point along a small stream known as Whippoorwill Branch. This is unrelated to the article redirected in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whippoorwill, Kentucky, which was in Logan County. The coverage I can find is limited to minor mentions for that Logan County Whippoorwill and then an obscure post office site in Laurel County that doesn't have an article. There's just not really evidence of a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG-passing community named Whippoorwill in Marion County. Hog Farm _Talk 23:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 23:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 23:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per noms research and the articles claim that it fails WP:GEOLAND "Whippoorwill was an unincorporated community" Jeepday (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Rams

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. The only source I could find was the one already cited in the article - and that one doesn't seem particularly significant (at least in terms notability). Whisperjanes (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. On his own website, he features a tearsheet from Hamiltonmagazine. It's listed as RAW TALENT By TED McINTYRE on http://www.hamiltonmagazine.com/sitepages/?aid=2073&cn=PAST+ISSUES&an=Spring%202010 but links to a page that no longer exists, http://www.hamiltonmagazine.com/sitepages/?aid=2075 and is not archived by archive.org. Vexations (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not finding any good sources in a search. Possibly (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. A BEFORE search does not turn up anything to support notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 25 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 Terry Alderman. There is no consensus here either way whether to merge this content to Terry Alderman or not; that conversation would be best suited to the talk page of the article or a more central location. However, there is consensus in the discussion below that the article should not remain in its current form, which redirecting achieves. Editors can, either boldly or with consensus, rescue the content from behind the redirect and perform a merge to Terry Alderman should they wish, and normal editorial process can take it from there. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Terry Alderman

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

Fails WP:NLIST which says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Also, note that there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Firstly, the claim that the RfC had a consensus to cover all cricket articles is a complete lie, the closing administrator noted that "here's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles". Secondly, I simply don't believe that there is no source that would compile his five wicket hauls together, but the obvious solution is to merge the list of five wicket hauls to Terry Alderman. A valid alternative to deletion that is not inappropriate. The sourcing is entirely fine for an article outside of a list. Deletion is a poor and lazy option here and editors need to find other solutions rather than just nominating the article for deletion.The nominator has a clear bias against particular cricket articles and needs to stop nominating them for deletion when a clear alternative exists and they are required to consider those before deleting. Deus et lex (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Terry Alderman (removing details of the batsmen dismissed). No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, and would enhance the content there. International five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy achievement, and by definition, a list of them within the main article has the necessary context and explanation, so does not fail NOTSTATS in this regard. Unfortunately the nom seems to be misrepresenting the consensus of the cited RFC, which closed: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page, in particular the batter's dismissed and economy rate are really not needed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article is just a list of scores from ESPNCricinfo and has no independent sources covering these individual achievements as a set. Agree with nom that there should be no precedent to include these on players' articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as mentioned in other AfDs, putting statistics into a main article does not violate WP:STATS. You need to stop making that argument. Deus et lex (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to AFD closer recent afds were closed as Merge - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Cheteshwar Pujara, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Hussey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Desmond Haynes; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Colin Cowdrey; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following also resulted in DELETE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan while these following articles resulted in redirection to player's article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. With all of these lists of centuries or five-wicket hauls for players we are getting mixed outcomes. Admin needs to allow greater discussions (longer than a week) on all AfD's without resulting to arbitrary outcomes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:51, 4 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soojin Lee

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

non notable designer, even the article calls her "new and emerging", which in WP terms means Not Yet Notable. A report on one dress for a notable person doesn't show notability of the designer, nor does a blurb in a trade show magazine or routine coverage as one of the minor designers at a show. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable designer. "new and emerging" is code for not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 25 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 Gain of function research. I'm going to support merging here. If there is anything of use, please merge away and redirect. Ping me if you need any help with redirecting. Missvain (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Working Group

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Mostly passing mentions in sources, no evidence of in-depth significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged this article for {{notability}}, as the sources were almost entirely passing mentions. It's not so much an organization as it is a list of signatories to an open letter. It would make sense to have an article on a group that, say, holds a series of annual conferences that receive sustained coverage in the science press. This isn't that. The only substantial coverage of this "working group" after its initial announcement was a small study that compared it with the statement issued shortly thereafter in opposition. (A sample from their conclusion: [S]cientists who are more familiar with biomedical experiments are more likely to endorse maintaining current safety protocols. The combination of weak peer effects with strong specialization effects suggests that these scientists are drawing on disciplinary knowledge in making their choice, perhaps reflecting greater familiarity with the laboratory risk mitigation techniques, and thus judge the risks as acceptable.) As they were both covered to roughly the same extent, having an article on one group but not the other violates NPOV, as does including one group merely as an afterthought in the article about the other. But neither the Cambridge Working Group nor Scientists for Science rise to the level of needing a stand-alone article. Anything that needs to be said about either can be said more usefully in a more general article about biomedical research. XOR'easter (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the subject of this entry can best be described as something between a think tank and an open letter, not an organization. Since you tagged the article, I have added a number of reputable sources, including O Globo, Le Monde, Science Magazine, Forbes, Scientific American, the Guardian, Wired, Nature Magazine, CIDRAP, Vox, the New York Times, and NPR. Most of these articles mention the group as an integral part of the subject, as did the New York Magazine article, which you removed, and which I feel should be included as a reference. The group was formed informally, a number of years before it wrote its consensus statement, and it has gained attention due to the current scrutiny around the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is subject to controversy as the site of a possible biosecurity event. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the group is an integral part of the subject, then it should be described in an article on the subject. The fact that it took them a long time to issue a statement after they first started talking about it doesn't make them more worthy of note. Passing mentions and blurbs that just recycle their statement (like Wired) are not enough to build an article on. Nor do any of the sources indicate that the group, as opposed to the general question of research risk, is of continuing interest. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sources I provided. I just added a new one from Science magazine. It is untrue to say they give the group only "passing mentions and blurbs". Furthermore, the question of continuing interest would be best resolved if you reverted your deletion of one of the sources that mention them. ScrupulousScribe (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all of the sources (I even contributed one); my evaluation of them stands. The New York Magazine story you mention is by a non-subject-matter-expert and has had its reliability questioned (currently being debated in a slightly different context at WP:RSN). I should perhaps say that I generally prefer when articles at AfD can be improved to the point where they're kept, and I like documenting odd aspects of the scientific community: unusual research groups, niche journals, eccentric books — writing about somebody's obscure passion project can be quite emotionally satisfying. And, of course, the general topic of medical-research risk is a socially important one. If I thought the sources on the Cambridge Working Group justified telling its story as a stand-alone article, I'd be fighting tooth and nail for it. But it's my honest take that they don't. In fact, given the story that the sources do lay out, dedicating an article to it in this way raises a fundamental POV problem, which nobody has addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for reading the sources. Sorry if I insinuated that you don't understand the topic at hand. I have observed a problem with some editors with a certain POV who don't even bother to read sources supporting a contrarian POV, and then the discussion just goes nowhere, and this is a problem that is playing out in other threads. While I understand why you don't think the New York Magazine article isn't relevant here, I don't think it's fair to disqualify a reliable source based on its authorship, as it would have gone through a rigorous editorial review process. The author also wrote a book on the subject of bioweapons research by the US government, so it would be incorrect to say he doesn't understand the topic of virology, and can't write on it as a journalist. I believe the source does meet the criteria of WP:RS, though perhaps I need to create a new section, on its recent notability regarding COVID-19.

I agree that there can be a POV problem if we don't also create an entry on the "Scientists for Science" group, but I would point out to you that they were mostly created in reaction to the Cambridge Working group, and there is now some middle ground between them. Another point I would like to make to you is that I think it will become increasingly more important for Wikipedia editors to understand the different classifications of emerging infectious diseases, and that the accidental release of a virus undergoing gain of function research should not be conflated with the deliberate release of a virus constructed as a bioweapon, and consensus of the Cambridge Working Group is very valuable for making this point.

ScrupulousScribe (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not much sigcov, more small mentions or just standard reporting, but I think I think it is notable enough for pressurising the federal authorities to bring in the memorandum, and that it has been quoted by many scientific papers since (which if an academic individually would probably swing it).Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The analogy to a group that made one position statement would be an individual academic with only one publication; such a person would almost certainly fail WP:PROF (and, for that matter, would have WP:BLP1E issues). XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to refrain from badgering the views of those who are arguing different from your view point. This is a talking shop where editors can express their views to the AFD. Each editor puts their case, and is not designed to be a personal attack on each others opinions. So far you have continued to personally challenge the arguments of the editors for Keep. It is not your place to make the decision, it will be the closer based on the arguments made. You have made your point, le others make theirs. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is anything that I've said a personal attack on anyone's opinion? I've replied to people, people have replied to me, and I've replied to them in turn. New arguments have been brought up (counting Google hits, appearances in some books, etc.), which have required additional discussion beyond my !vote above. I'm not expecting to make the final decision; I rather think this is one of those cases where the standard of sourcing that I find reasonable is higher than what the consensus settles on, and the article is eventually kept in spite of anything I say. It's happened at least once before, and it might happen again, as such is the way of things. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This group was effective in getting a moratorium on dangerous virus experimentation in 2014. But then the experiments were resumed in 2017. And now we have a novel virus causing a global pandemic. The matter has naturally attracted attention such as this at each stage and this large group of scientists seems to be a significant part of the story. I'm not finding another article on Wikipedia which covers the history of this controversy in a more general way. If there is one, the worst case would be that we merge into it. Otherwise this will have to do as a start and we should be considering expansion. WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The overall debate about how to manage the hazards of medical research could be described in, for example, Medical research. The link you provide is yet another passing mention that provides no details about the organization as an organization. Does anyone have better? XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst perhaps of less relevance now, the Group has a place in history at least. As a result of the COVID pandemic, people might now come to Wikipedia to find out about the Group. It therefore seems reasonable to have an article about it. Arcturus (talk) 15:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can speculate all day about what people might come to Wikipedia for, but without WP:SIGCOV, we can't write an article to meet that hypothetical need. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, the Google search (i.e. the link at the top of this page) delivers over 2600 results. As to what "significant coverage" means is a bit subjective. On balance, I would say this article has it. Arcturus (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Google hits is not a reliable indicator of pretty much anything. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's indicative. That's why it's included in the Find Sources facility. I did say it was subjective. Anyway, just out of interest, and off-topic in a direct sense, but when I looked through Google Scholar results I found this one: [16]. Arcturus (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's included in the "Find sources" tool because it's a way to find sources, not because counting the total number is helpful (usually, it isn't, which is why it's literally listed at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Forbes "contributor" pieces are not reliable sources, since even when written by subject-matter experts they have no editorial oversight — and oversight and review matter even more for medicine than for most subjects. XOR'easter (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have given the impression that the Forbes article was relevant to the discussion - as I said, it's off topic. However, some contributors here might find it interesting, that's all. Anyway, check out the contributor [17] and then have a look at what Wikipedia says about subject-matter experts at Forbes. Arcturus (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Biotechnology risk.~~ From what I can see reading the sources (e.g. this one [18]), the actual notable topic here is the scientific and public debate about benefits and dangers of gain-of-function research in life sciences. Section Biotechnology risk#Regulation addresses the matter rather briefly but it really deserves to be substantially expanded or perhaps an extra section added in that article. Both groups, The Cambridge Working Group and Scientists for Science, ought to be mentioned there. However, from the sources discussed so far (and from those that I myself have been able to find), I do not see the amount and depth of coverage of the CWG as sufficient to justify a standalone article about it. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my comment, after the close has been reversed, to merge to Gain of function research#Biorisk concern, which is a new article, created after the start of this AfD, which looks like a more plausible merge target here. Nsk92 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The group is visible and covered not only in Science (journal) ([19]) and news, but even in books [20]. Importantly, it includes a number of high-profile scientists we have pages about (see here and list on the page). Yes, it is obviously related to Biotechnology risk, however, this is a specific organization that seems to be sufficiently notable by itself for a standalone page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those Google Books hits are false positives, even predating the actual announcement of the "working group" (which, again, was more an open letter than an organization). The rest appear to be the same kind of brief, passing mentions that we've already seen. One news story that does little more but state they exist is not WP:SIGCOV, and supplementing it with a smattering of name-drops doesn't exactly help. Why should Wikipedia say more about this group than anyone else? XOR'easter (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what do we have about this organization (no, this is not a letter, but an organization)?

First four books (link above) mention this organization in a meaningful way, fifth book is not about it; I did not check other books.
Article in Science ([21])
Article in PNAS (Disparate foundations of scientists’ policy positions on contentious biomedical research), and it mentioned this organization as important.
This article tells: "The debates continued into 2014 and a series of significant biosafety lapses at U.S. government laboratories spurred different groups of scientists to organize to provide a collective expression of their views about the implications for what had now become known as “gain-of-function” (GOF) research.16 One group, called the Cambridge Working Group after its founding meeting at Harvard University, issued a consensus statement in July focused solely on biosafety concerns that recommended: "For any experiment, the expected net benefits should outweigh the risks. ..." etc. This statement was soon followed by a competing statement from another new group, Scientists for Science, which argued "Scientists for Science are confident that biomedical research on potentially dangerous pathogens can be performed safely..." etc.
Forbes: [22]
this
[23] - an article in The Lancet.
this article
And so on. I am tired to count. My very best wishes (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the first four books. None of them give details about the organization as an organization. Books three and four give them parity with Scientists for Science, indicating that the two groups should not be described in separate articles and that the later should not be treated as a footnote to the former, but rather, that both are part of the story of a legitimate scientific debate. The article in Science is a short news item that notes the CWG's existence. The article in PNAS is one that I found and added to the page the other day; like the book mentions, it indicates parity of significance between CWG and SFS. It's probably the best source of the bunch, and it tells us to write about the two groups together as part of the larger story. The Forbes item is a "contributor" piece; it might have some value as an self-published source by a subject-matter expert, but it's also WP:PRIMARY, because the author is a signatory of the Cambridge Working Group. The CIDRAP story is OK, but its focus is on the Scientists For Science. Again, at best, it's evidence for merging this tiny part into the larger whole where it fits better. The Lancet story allocates one sentence to the CWG itself and quotes founding member Marc Lipsitch once. Nothing wrong with that, but it also says nothing meaningful about the CWG as an organization. Source #8 is coauthored by Lipsitch and is WP:PRIMARY. Applying our everyday standards for when to write an article about an organization and when to discuss a small topic as part of a larger one, the available sources make it plain that the CWG doesn't need an article. Write about it at Biotechnology risk or Medical research. A dedicated, stand-alone article is simply suboptimal, and whatever deserves to be said can be rewritten from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To perhaps clarify: when I say that the sources don't detail the organization "as an organization", I mean that scientific organizations do things like hold conferences, where papers are presented that are then published as proceedings volumes or special issues of peer-reviewed journals; they get funding by securing grants; they may conduct research or re-distribute their funds to support research elsewhere. The sources presented so far have been noticeably light about any details of that sort. Instead, we get a position statement, and various quotes from people affiliated with it. That's fine in principle and could all be useful somewhere, but it's not organizational information. XOR'easter (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), tells: "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement: A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger,..." [this is just an example, obviously]. There is indeed a hugely significant controversy/dispute, with regard to which views by this organization were discussed (rather than simply mentioned) in multiple 3rd party RS, such as Science, PNAS, etc. Hence my vote. My very best wishes (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting WP:NORG: Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company. That's more or less the situation we're in with this. The coverage is of the scientific/ethical controversy, not so much the CWG as an entity. What meetings did the CWG hold? Did it acquire grants as a group effort? What, beyond issuing a statement, did it do? Et cetera. XOR'easter (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company". OK, but in this case the entire organization was created to advocate a specific public policy position, and the publications are focusing on this organization as advocating such position. Saying that, I agree this is a borderline notability and would not worry if this page will be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked at the sources, both included in the article and some mentioned above, as well as conducting a WP:BEFORE search. I see nothing that specifically brings this group notability outside any other activist group that made for a single purpose. Some are notable and some are not. The question remains, does the specific subject, the entity, receive significant coverage, not of its ideas but of the entity itself, in multiple, not numerical but those in which a wide range of view points is discussed, reliable and independent secondary sources? Nothing in the notability guideline WP:N states that a thousand mentions equal a significant coverage, in fact, it reflects the exact opposite. Mentions are not stackable nor do they build to notability. The entity fails notability. If there is an appropriate redirect or merge I would not be opposed to such action. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This group and what it stands for represents one of the most pressing global issues in decades. Given sarscov2 and the devastating global effects of the virus, one must pause to consider their wisdom. These events are of course not trivial and I am shocked that any reference to this group is deleted. Strong keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyanja (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC) — Garyanja (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete — this is a letter that has received brief coverage in the news in the past. Per Tsistunagiska, I believe the content contained in this article is noteworthy, but the "Group" itself is not. I think some portion of the content here should be merged to Gain of function research. -Darouet (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —S Marshall T/C 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was previously closed as "keep". The close was analyzed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 2 and was self-evidently unacceptable. I have reverted it and relisted for a clean discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organisation failing WP:NORG. There's a lot of ref bombing but many of the refs don't even mention this "Cambridge Working Group". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with any merge/redirect outcomes as well. The article should be deleted, and merging some of its content elsewhere and creating a redirect to that page is entirely compatible with this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admittedly a cursory search, but I couldn't see that the group had, well, done any work... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the material here is essentially interesting, but the article overall is problematic. ~~The title of the group named is little enough used that the article risks falling foul of our rule against neologisms~~, quite apart from the high bar WP:NORG sets that I don't think the article has a chance of clearing. I think the task that faces us is to find a better home for this material. I note the article Moratorium on Research Intended To Create Novel Potential Pandemic Pathogens by Lipsitch and Inglesby coins the term Potential Pandemic Pathogens for the specific concern they have, to distiunguish the heightened concern they have compared to prior gain-of-function work. A GScholar search for that term does not yield many highly cited results, though: two clear the 50 gscholhits bar, one by Lipsitch and a coauthor, one with Nassim Nicholas Taleb and a coauthor. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC) (Postscript there is RS-quality media coverage of the group under the article's name, so point about neologisms retracted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Weak Delete - it's a notable group, with lots of coverage and even has Professor Lockdown as a member. As per editor Chalst the "Moratorium on Research To Create Potential Pandemic Pathogens" concept is even more noteable. But I'd prefer plain deletion to merging on IAR grounds: CWG is often referred to in arguments advancing the lab leak "theory". Regardless of how credible one finds the idea, theres several reasons why wikipedians might not like our platform to be used to support that position. If it was widely believed, it would inevitably result in more ill will towards innocent Chinese & Chinese looking people. Also, now the vaccines are out, biotech is supposed to the hero of the Covid story. If it was widely believed the pandemic arose from an artificially enhanced (gain of function) virus escaping from a certain lab, it might hurt not just public trust in biotech, but in science itself. And we can't have that can we? I mean, we scientists are pure as the driven snow. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable: I am Chinese and I don’t believe that deleting this encyclopedia worthy article will save my people from malice. Most rational people understand that not all people of Chinese appearance are responsible for the Communist Party of China's actions, which could include covering up the root cause of COVID-19. To your point about the purity of scientists, George F. Gao said at the Gain of Function Symposium back in 2014, that scientists are human beings, and sometimes they want to hide things [24], which could be what is happening here. Fangpila (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC) — Fangpila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Other than us both appreciating good professor Gao, I fear we have too different perspectives for us to reach agreement on these matters, at least not without very long discussion. But coming from someone like yourself, these words have much weight and make me doubt elements of my thinking. So thank you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as contrary to what Alexandermcnabb, ProcrastinatingReader and Chalst say, CWG was formed as a group to sign a consensus statement, not to do work. The Le Monde and O GLOBO references give more than just passing mention. The more recent mentions are also more than passing. Fangpila (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC) — Fangpila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's always nice to see a new user familiar with Arbcom after having made only a couple of edits, even if they are revolving around the same topic. Getting to grips with things quickly! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is just not true. The sources in relation to this Group, including those two, are literally namedrops. Those two don't even discuss the group, they discuss something else and mention the group in passing. They don't even come close to demonstrating GNG never mind WP:NORG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gain of function research. I looked at the first 11 sources in the article. The sources weren't in depth at all. In my opinion, not enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. A paragraph or two about the Cambridge Working Group could be added to the article Gain of function research. That seems like a good spot for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to new section in Gain of function research, perhaps 2015 moratorium on research synthesising novel potential pandemic pathogens. I think the sources as they stand do not defeat the verifiability concerns raised by XOR'easter: we can't as it stands write an encyclopediac article on the group. The material is interesting, though, and I would prefer that we did not lose it. Having the target be to do with the moratorium would help resist the slanted coverage feared by FeydHuxtable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge. On the basis of the group's public impact. and the coverage in the books, it would justify a separate article, but it may be more, not less visible and useful as a. section of gain of function research--except for the usual problem, of the WP article not showing up in the Googles. I do not think that should influence us--we're making an encyclopedia, not content for Google. . In either case, it would be appropriate and necessary to include information about the opposition to the group, which will deal with the question of nPOV. . The discussion above seems to have gotten entwined in the discussion of other issues, bu the problem of Covid-like pandemics (or worse) was very real before Covid . DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: could you elaborate on which WP:NORG-meeting 'coverage in books' you refer to? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I heard about the group in Senate testimony during the questioning of Dr Fauci about gain of function research with regard to Covid-19. It's an important topic and it was nice to be able to find a relevant article. 2603:8001:9500:9E98:0:0:0:9A7 (talk) 08:37, 12 May 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. Daniel (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Sasikumar

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

Non-notable author fails WP:AUTHOR. Google search returns nothing substantial, other than linking back to Wiki. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is one among the new breed of writers in Malayalam literature. On the literature side, he has authored three novels of which one was shortlisted for the annual literary award given by DC Books, the largest of the Malayalam language publishers. Further, the subject has published several articles in Economics. The mention in the deletion proposal about Google search does not seem to reflect the truth; my search returned sites such as The Indian Express, Mathrubhumi, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, University of Hyderabad article repository, RePEc (Research Papers in Economics) listings, GoodReads, Bodhi Commons, Gale Academic Onefile and Hindawi research, besides listings by many online book sellers.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-01 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have personally heard of his writer, a person involved with literature. I think this article should stay as the person mentioned meets WP:N.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Atlantis77177 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]

Delete – I am mindful of the possible systemic bias here and would be willing to change my !vote if it is shown that WP:SIGCOV exists in Malayalam, but there is no actual claim to notability in the article, nor have I been able to find any independent coverage at all of the person or his books in reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. The individual in question is an academic who very clearly does not meet WP:NPROF, and an author. I do not see how he would meet WP:NAUTHOR either; the "DC Books Literary Award" is not a notable award, and being nominated for that does not make an author notable. Barring any indications that WP:NAUTHOR #3 is met, it looks like it might just be too soon for an article about this person. Tachs mentions Google hits – could you give some examples of reliable sources (that is, links to the sources themselves) that you found? Anything written by the person himself is irrelevant here (including any academic papers found through GScholar), as is Goodreads, and anything from book sellers. --bonadea contributions talk 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malayala Manorama 1, Malayala Manorama 2, Malayala Manorama 3,Mathrubhumi Marunadan Malayali, all are Malayalam news media houses.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless SIGCOV is discovered this subject does not meet the current criteria for retention/inclusion as laid out in WP:N. SNG's are fine for article creation. The article should and will be tested against GNG criteria. It does not pass this criteria as it currently stands. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources included. Good bibliography section, but I only see primary sources. If the subject is notable it should have at least some secondary sources to back it up, if this is subject to change during the consensus, I will change my vote per WP:HEY. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CAVETOWNFAN: Malayala Manorama 1, Malayala Manorama 2, Malayala Manorama 3,Mathrubhumi Marunadan Malayali, Pallikutam, all these are secondary sources from leading Malayalam magazines.--jojo@nthony (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per WP:NAUTHOR. From the sources provided above, his books seem to have been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:49, 2 February 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 IOS jailbreaking. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BigBoss

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

A blog that does not appear to meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG; searches along the lines of "BigBoss" + "jailbreak" will get a fair few hits but almost nothing exploring BigBoss in any real depth. The best source that I could find was this, which is short of the mark. Spiderone 16:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I totally concur with Spiderone I also do not believe WP:NWEB is met. Celestina007 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe that full deletion is heavy-handed and unhelpful. BigBoss is notable within the context of iOS jailbreaking due to its history as the first software repository. At the very least, it should be merged into iOS jailbreaking or Cydia. WRB (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt that WP:GNG or WP:NWEB are met with this website. Lead image also has questionable licensing. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would concede that sources could be much better. Fixing this would bring it inline with WP:NWEB, which is why I think deletion is wholly unjustified. WRB (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show sources that demonstrate that BigBoss has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself as per NWEB or that BigBoss has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization, I will happily change my vote Spiderone 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has experience with BigBoss and other jailbreaking software during its early days, I believe that it is notable in the story of jailbreaking. I believe it should be merged into iOS jailbreaking. Insurance Lovers (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge and redirect as I do not believe that this can qualify for its own article on evidence available. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would concur with the above request to merge this article into iOS jailbreaking at this time, however, if it is not merged in a timely manner and it brought up for AfD again I would consider !voting to delete the article. It does not meet enough notability criteria to stand on its own as per WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above.--Kieran207 talk 22:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: the better home for this article is iOS jailbreaking. This is not Fileforum, not a shareware site, not Sourceforge, nor FreshMeat. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and redirect) as suggested above makes sense to me. ~EdGl talk 22:17, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Warren (fashion designer)

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

This page almost certainly fails WP:ARTIST despite the claim the subject is a "fashion designer." It also fails basically WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The subject of this BLP has received some tabloid and other fluff coverage mainly based on their associations with famous people and presence on social media -- basically a whole lot of nothing. Most of the articles cited on the page appear to be either 1) promotional pieces designed to advance the subject's relatively obscure, and apparently now-shuttered business, or social media presence, 2) primarily talk about their relationships with famous people. He's apparently also the grandson of a genuinely noted fashion designer, which is often mentioned in any of the limited coverage. This mostly seems to be someone who's on the peripheries of the celebrity gossip world and not of genuine note. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Looking over the references on the page, 50% of the sources seem to be due to his association with Tiffany Trump (as per nominator), as many editors would say "notability is not inherited," however there seems to be enough reliable sources in which he is a large focus of them / not just mentioned in passing (NY Times, Vanity Fair for instance). Those sources label him as a fashion designer and feature him in the article, but not fully, since he is part of a social group containing people more much notable than him. For example, the first sentence of the NY Times piece talks about his job as a fashion designer mentioned, the article then jumps to others but continues to talk about him later. Same for the Vanity Fair and Dujour sources. I found another the focuses fully on his fashion show (standard.co.uk). Would he be in these publications, if he didn't have famous friends? Not sure... but there seems to be enough there with reliable sources that mention him as one of the main subjects of the article. I agree this should have been nominated for a healthy consensus to be reached. CosmicNotes (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to me CosmicNotes may be making the case for deletion. I don’t see WP:BIO met. —ThorstenNY (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there is a lot of coverage of this fashion designer, it is not substantial to meet WP:ANYBIO. Photos of this fellow with glam girls doesn't really give notability, nor do the antics of the Brat Pack (or Snap Pack). WP:TOOSOON applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:49, 24 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 after three relists. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FreeWill

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

Full of promotional fluff and non-encyclopaedic content, 'supported' by cites to company's own website and sources that are primary and/or don't mention the company at all. The closest to RS seems to be the NYT article that actually mentions FreeWill a few times, albeit somewhat incidentally in a wider context. The Yahoo Finance piece is about FreeWill and gives good coverage, but I don't know how RS it is. IMO, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The Sullivan NYT article devotes 4 paragraphs to FreeWill. The Forbes article, by a staff writer, is entirely devoted to FreeWill. The Town and Country listing calls this effort one of the top 50 philanthropic efforts of 2019. Reuters article devotes 4 paragraphs to FreeWill. AARP devotes 2 of 7 paragraphs to FreeWill. Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it is determined that the article about this company doesn't meet our notability requirements, please restore FreeWill back to being a redirect to free will, as this was pre-April 2020. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly relisting for a third time, in the hope that editors can review the article and determine if its issues are fatal or not. Thanks!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, move to FreeWill (company), and redirect this title to Free will, as is done with Freewill (despite the Rush song). BD2412 T 05:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have never gone through so many references that tell me how to make a will, and that, online. This is a non-encyclopaedic article with a lot of cites to the company's website. This is really about making a will online and FreeWill - will help you - if you give to charity. Well, its time for WP:TNT, blow it up and start again. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaving aside the fact that this article has been WP:REFBOMBed with 36 listed references, I agree with Whiteguru above that there's very little in the article that provides in-depth information on the company. It's PR and reads like a proposal to a VC firm to raise money. Of the 36 references, the majority (12) don't even mention the company and 10 are PRIMARY and link to the company's website leaving 14 references. 4 are adverts from charities (Red Cross, DAV, Defenders of Wildlife, United Way) looking for donations and pointing to the freewill website as a service (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND). The Town and Country reference is an inclusion of the founders in a "top 50" list and says nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The OpenDataNY is simply the information the company filed with the New York State Dept of State (fails ORGIND), and the angel.co reference is a job advert by the company that includes its own description (fails ORGIND). The AARP reference is a mention-in-passing (fails CORPDEPTH). That leaves 6 references:
- This from the NYT is really also a mention-in-passing. The article is about whether making wills is cheaper without a lawyer by using online services and they talk to several people who have used the services, two of which simply mentioned that they'd used this company. There's also a quote from the founder. This reference doesn't have sufficient in-depth information on the company nor have any independent opinion, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
- This from USNews is a list of various services for online wills but which has insufficient in-depth information and insufficient independent opinion on the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
- The Forbes reference is from Forbes staff on the "sites" portion of the website. Leaving that aside, it relies entirely on an interview with the founders and information provided by the company with zero independent opinion/analysis/etc from the journalist, fails ORGIND
- This Yahoo reference is a promotional piece from when the company was starting out where the founders/company discuss their objectives and competition. Fails ORGIND for the same reasons as above.
- This Reuters reference is a mention-in-passing and relies on a quotation from the founder and information provided by the company, fails ORGIND for the same reasons as above
- This from Philanthropy is a podcast where the founder was interviewed with no Independent Content, fails ORGIND.

Despite the volume of references, the simply demonstrate the effect of an echo chamber and PR. Not a single reference contains "Independent Content" as per ORGIND nor meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above criticisms are strange. Town & Country (magazine) "is the oldest continually published general interest magazine in the United States." It evaluated (as used in WP:CORPDEPTH) that FreeWill was significant enough all by itself to put its founders among the top 50 philanthropists of 2019:

"Grand Plan They founded FreeWill, a free online estate planning tool that encourages users to leave money to charity.
Making Headlines FreeWill has earned $404 million in nonprofit commitments."

so it's quite wrong to say that T&C "says nothing about the company". The company is the reason for being on the top 50 list. The Sullivan NYT article evaluates FreeWill by (a) including it in the article, (b) citing that a fundraiser for a national animal welfare organization chose FreeWill for her orgaization over its competitors, and (c) quoting lawyers on its limitations. News stories in papers like NYT use quotes, not their own voice, to give "overview, description, commentary, ..., discussion," (as used in WP:CORPDEPTH). This is also clearly independent coverage (WP:ORGIND). The article has lesser coverage of Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom which have their own WP articles. The Reuters article similarly compares FreeWill to using a lawyer, and evaluates it fairly negatively: "Keep in mind that these are very generic forms and may not suit your specific needs, especially for complicated estates and guardianship issues." The USN&WR article is explicitly a review and comparison to other products, all of which are evaluated as "The Best Online Will Making Programs". Compare this level of notability to the vast number of businesses which no independent source has ever thought were the best at anything, and whose WP articles have few or no independent evaluations, such as Florida National Bank, Broad and Cassel, The Palm Beach Post, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, or even Pulitzer Prize-winning papers: Palestine Herald-Press and Ames Tribune. The WP article on FreeWill is not PR, and no doubt has material the company would prefer to drop. The WP article repeats the critiques made by those independent sources, and situates the company in its competitive landscape and in issues of privacy and dispute resolution. I have no relation to the company, but recognize its significance in the field and believe an encyclopedia needs to cover it. Numbersinstitute (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wilson, Alexandra (2020-03-13). "The Will To Give: This End-Of-Life Platform Is Facilitating $1.1 Billion In Charitable Donations". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2021-02-01. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
  The article is from a Forbes staff member. It has quotations from people affiliated with the company. But it also has independently researched content: "Though FreeWill does not require individuals to make charitable donations in their wills, it does experiment in methods to increase charitable giving. At the moment, roughly 19% do elect to include donations, with the average user donating around $111,000. The American Red Cross has received the most donations, with organizations like the United Way, Defenders of Wildlife and Disabled American Veterans garnering significant contributions. The New York-based company, which now has 50 full-time employees, derives its revenue entirely from selling subscriptions to non-profits. Over 300 charities pay FreeWill to create customized donation pages and deliver data that gives them insights into the type of people that are electing to donate."
2. Guzman, Zack (2018-10-16). "This startup lets you write a will for free by donating to charity". Yahoo! News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-01. Retrieved 2021-02-01.
  The article has quotations from people affiliated with the company. But it also has independently researched content: "But a new startup founded by two Stanford Graduate School of Business grads is working to reframe the thinking around end-of-life planning from something morose and depressing into something uplifting by bringing charitable donations to the forefront and removing financial burdens. The aptly named FreeWill lets users draft a will for free and instead charges participating nonprofits an annual subscription fee, ranging from a few thousand dollars to over $50,000 depending on the size of the organization. FreeWill works with more than 70 nonprofits, including the American Red Cross and United Way, which hope to gain from users’ donations."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow FreeWill to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:42, 3 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CS/LS5

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

Fails WP:N, there are not enough sources out there that allow for proper encyclopedic coverage. Loafiewa (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two reference on this article are primary. Looking at the other language page there seems to be several other primary references there. While there are language barriers it looks to meet WP:GNG to me. Jeepday (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. I can't find any evidence of notability. WilliamSpeare (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:44, 24 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 List of American films of 2014. Black Kite (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Nine Lives of Christmas

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

PROD was contested because a review was found at "The Movie Scene" (which is a site I cannot find). My WP:BEFORE finds no sources. Article only has WP:PRIMARY sources. Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable work and unlikely to become more notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of American films of 2014. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the Movie Scene site [25]. Also found Radio Times review [26] Donaldd23 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The moviescene.co.uk is not a reliable source. Their about page indicates that Andy Webb wrote all of the reviews, and he does not have credentials as a reviewer. The database entry at radiotimes.com has no reviewer and is not extensive coverage. I don't believe either add to notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz Beat me to it (LoL). :-P I was like, whaaaa??!!! Where did Walter go? --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kirkus Reviews are an established reviewer, and have reviewed this film of the book here Screener: The Nine Lives of Christmas. 5 December 2020. Kirkus Reviews also have their own wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C20C:9000:D89B:429E:AA22:1CDD (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please advise how this film is less notable than Hallmark Movies Recipe for Love or Midnight Masquerade, which have not been suggested for deletion. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.93.228 (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it hasn't been brought up for AfD. If you feel it not notable then submit it for AfD and let the process begin. That's your call. This film is not notable, however, and it is before us now. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thought this was a discussion page, but by your comment "This film is not notable, however, and it is before us now.", it appears your decision has already been made. A level of impartiality may have been desirable whilst more evidence may have been gathered, but perhaps this Wolf doesn't like films featuring cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C20C:9000:A06C:6568:4301:C104 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a discussion page and no decision has been made. We are attempting to determine, using reliability criteria, whether it is or is not notable. I suspect that you knew that though. The review from Kirkus did not appear in my search, and I'm not sure if it's enough to help us determine if it should be kept. If you find more, that would help turn the tide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL, IP. Notability can only be established by way of indepth coverage in independent, secondary reliable sources. The existence of other articles is a moot point because whether or not they are notable does not have any bearing on this film. If they are notable then they will be kept, but if they are not then pointing them out only raises the likelihood that they will be in turn nominated for deletion.

As far as whether or not Wolf did due diligence, assume that he has. Unless there is very obvious evidence that someone didn't search, you should assume that they've looked for sourcing. Even then you should assume WP:GOODFAITH because there are a wide variety of things that can impact sourcing such as location, search engine, and search terms. That's why multiple people weigh in here, as the more people who search the more likely that any potential sourcing will be found. As far as potential for sourcing goes, the article can only be kept if there is enough evidence to establish that there was substantial coverage for the film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments and I feel everyone should have their opinion but also agree with Walter that this is not the place for it. If you would like to continue a discussion on my talk page I would welcome that so long as it is civil. I am all for inclusion but I must make my personal ruling on my personal interpretation of a very vague notability guideline. I did search for sources. I spent hours, again, this morning, searching for sources and came to the same conclusion. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete -Fails notability criteria in WP:N. Not opposed to redirect as suggested by Cupper52. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love Hallmark holiday films, but I couldn't find enough to establish notability. The Kirkus review isn't enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't realize this page would bring up so much discussion :) . I've added some more citations, including a small piece from a deputy editor of The New York Times saying this film was worth watching. Hopefully this will be adequate. I've also been told by a friend that this film is popular amongst certain Indian cultures, as the cat may be a reincarnation of the firefighter's deceased family member, helping to guide him to happiness. Unfortunately I have found absolutely nothing to corroborate this, however, I did find this mention on an Indian website, saying that Brandon Routh was popularly known for his films and series like Arrow, The Nine Lives of Christmas, Superman Returns and more - https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/hollywood-news/hollywood-celebs-who-have-acted-in-indian-films.html . They therefore appear to regard this film rather highly. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObscureF9 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That reference is a mention that "Brandon Routh" was in the film. It is not significant coverage of the film itself, which, unfortunately even after your additional references are still not present in the article, although it it is much better now than it was when I nominated it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and the comment in the NYT, is also a passing mention at the end of the season's Hallmark offerings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's ok, completely understand. There's not really enough going for it so I'm withdrawing my objection and am ok for it to be deleted then. ObscureF9 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further assessment of the sourcing provided during the discussion, and further views generally, would be preferred to reach a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- If you're expecting WP:HEY, not with the new sources. Passing mention or otherwise poor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are some sources, but they do not add up to meeting the notability guidelines as far as I can see. These kinds of generic TV movies often get the passing mentions you'd expect to acknowledge they exist, but it does not seem to have inspired sufficient substantial coverage of it specifically. ~ mazca ^talk 12:44, 5 February 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. — The Earwig ^talk 02:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Quinn (writer)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. While Quinn has an impressive social media following, it does not appear to have translated to significant coverage in reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG by any means. Having a large following on social media doesn't make one notable. The only thing I see that is notable is having won a Round Table Commonwealth Award while at university, and that itself doesn't qualify one for a wiki article. Poor sourcing as well. ExRat (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. A social media following is some evidence of notability, but is hardly determinative, since it can be purchased or otherwise manipulated. I wish we would get away from all that nonsense, which tends to favor males, and stick to WP:GNG. In this case, she has garnered MSM attention, and that's sufficient for me. Bearian (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see which coverage you're referring to as MSM attention, could you clarify that? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – any biography that brings up a subject's concrete Instagram handle in the first line will raise red flags, and I'd also like to note that I would be interested in being pointed to the significant coverage that has been mentioned above. I certainly hope the remark doesn't just refer to this brief review by The Independent, which is already included in the article. A quick Google News search for "aileen quinn tinder" comes up virtually empty, and while we (fortunately) have no set-in-stone minimum number of social media followers necessary to warrant inclusion just on their merit, I have a creeping suspicion that it wouldn't come out anywhere near around 40k. There's certainly plenty future potential for notability with this individual, but it's just not here yet. AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further general views, and also to allow Bearian's bullet point to be discussed further if desired.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough coverage in reliable, independent sources. The Independent review qualifies as a passing mention. Ashley yoursmile! 06:52, 26 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 per WP:SNOW, this isn’t going anywhere. The previous AfD closed less than 2 days ago. (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Earle Sullivan

AfDs for this article:

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

Not even close to notable, text book example of an an WP:UNDUE WP:BLP1E Sure there's some limited news coverage of a WP:SINGLEEVENT, and also WP:NOTNEWS. What has this guy actually done? Not much of any note, this seems fairly obvious. Bacondrum 04:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural speedy keep: We literally just had this. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was "No consensus, Trending towards keep", in the previous AFD closed just a day before this nomination, no new information which would point to a different result, and we will just rehash the same argument which gets close to WP:POINT. I would encourage the nominator to withdraw the nomination so Wikipedia:Speedy keep could apply. --Salix alba (talk): 06:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing has changed in the 18 hours since the previous AFD closed. tedder (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Tower (Philadelphia)

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

Planned building that was never built, with no sources in the article in support of any contention other than that the property was ultimately sold to other investors with other plans for the site. BD2412 T 04:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as apparently the most notable trait here is that it doesn't exist. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. MER-C 18:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per rationale provided by BD2412, I agree 100%. Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is not enough to justify an article for it in its state of not existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, all of the above, and WP:MILL. There must be hundreds of such proposed buildings with that brand name, and we are not a free web host to list all of them. 16:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BendFilm Festival

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

No independent sources; doesn't meet WP:ORG; appears to be of local interest only. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search does not show relevance outside Oregon, other than offering a virtual film festival. So as per nom, of a local nature sans notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's nothing notable about this page. I looked for news coverage but could not find anything outside of routine press releaseas. Kire1975 (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tillmans, Virginia

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

Due to multiple requests not to clog up AFD with dozens of non-notable VA place stubs, I've been PRODding almost all of the ones I come across in that bunch that just aren't notable. But this is is going to AFD because I frankly cannot identify what in the world this is/was. GNIS entry is sourced to a county highway map, so it's not surprising this place doesn't show up on the topos. In fact, there's almost nothing on topographic maps at this site. Newspapers.com brings up a couple references to a "Tilman House", but the described location of the Tilman House does not fit the location of this site. Google and Google books don't bring up anything really meaningful, even when searching in county histories. There were some Tillmans in Albemarle County in olden times, but I can't find evidence of a WP:GEOLAND-passing community here. I just don't see any way this one is notable. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mass-production without WP:V or WP:N. US place names do not use apostrophes, so this was originally Tillman's, likely referring to the house or store belonging to a Mr. Tillman. Without any coverage we cannot presume notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Streetview seems to show that there was/is a business here, but no period shows more besides this except fairly scattered structures. GNIS copying a dot from someone else's map is just not enough information to justify an article. Mangoe (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GEOLAND --Whiteguru (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but strongly oppose speedy, as a large portion of the "mass-created" Virginia articles Reywas92 takes issue with are, in fact notable. That being said, this one isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 20:52, 26 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. — The Earwig ^talk 02:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion Automobile Association

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

No evidence of notability, parent company does not have an article to redirect to. Could not find sources to satisfy WP:COMPANY besides press releases. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This reads like an advertisement. As per nom, search does not bring up any sources (except a mention in a directory of Canadian Associations). Fails WP:COMPANY --Whiteguru (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-notable, promotional article: delete.Resowithrae (talk) 21:44, 25 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 14:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papal oath (traditionalist Catholic)

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

No source talks about the subject directly apart from one primary traditionalist Catholic source clearly mentionned (The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church, by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas A. Woods, pages 161-162) in which the hypothetical oath is presented. Sources are mostly primary sources, a few are secondary, but none apart from Ferrara and Woods mention the subject of the article, not even indirectly, i.e. a legend or story of a papal oath during the coronation of each pope. This article reads more like a blog post. The previous deletion proposal is very difficult to follow, and it seems the subject in this 2007 proposal was less the deletion, and more a page move. Veverve (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, we had a conversation about this, and I decided that the article is purely based on WP:OR because specifically we have no only one source about any "Traditionalist claim" so there are no bones, and it all falls apart. I feel this is someone's personal hobby horse, and hopefully has abandoned the idea long since. Elizium23 (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: there is one traditionalist source dealing with the subject directly; I have edited the nomination accordingly. Veverve (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I revise my comment, but the gist still holds: doesn't meet WP:GNG for topic. No article possible. Elizium23 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article seems to ramble away from its topic, with four footnotes being used to discuss the condemnation of Pope Honorius I, who is not mentioned by name in the oath. Nothing in the article clearly indicates when and where the legend of the papal oath originated, and why the originators did not consult the written sources that describe the coronation ceremony, or for that matter the recordings of the last three papal coronations. (Pope Pius XII's coronation was broadcast on radio, as were the coronations of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, and the latter two were also filmed for television broadcast.) I wonder if the oath in its "current" form, and the legend associated therewith, may have been created in the 1960s or later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to EWTN, the "Papal Oath" was "highly unlikely.. ever used at all in papal coronations and certainly not from the sixth to the 20th centuries given that the earliest recorded papal coronation ceremony is that of Pope Celestine II in 1143". [27] Doesn't seem to be significant, if even an accurate procedure of the Church. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep.This article is confusing and not well written but it is attempting to set out the main authoritative points of view about a fringe theory. People will come across this alleged oath online and turn to Wikipedia to find out about it. This article leads them through the reasons why the alleged oath is not, if it existed at all, what it is made out to be in some contemporary sites. It also describes other oaths that popes actually were required to take. It might be bette4 with a title like “Papal oath controversy” or something. Mccapra (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I’ll just add that if you Google “papal oath” you can see that there is in fact a claim by some traditional Catholics that the oath existed in the form described in the article, and was abandoned by modernists. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC) ok I’m giving up in this one now based on the arguments others have made. Mccapra (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: You wrote: "People will come across this alleged oath online and turn to Wikipedia to find out about it. This article leads them through the reasons why the alleged oath is not, if it existed at all, what it is made out to be in some contemporary sites." However, the whole article is OR of primary sources, or of secondary sources which never talk about the alledged oath; how, then, do we know if this oath existed or not, since no secondary sources deal with the subject of the article? People will turn to WP and will find the equivalent of a blog post, not a reliable article. Veverve (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn’t that a problem with most fringe theories? There’s something at the core which isn’t well founded. I see what you mean though. Mccapra (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Talking about a fringe theory, and a fortriori proving said theory is not well founded, is only possible if we have reliable secondary sources about said theory. Veverve (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion leaning towards delete at this stage per policy-based arguments, but giving this another 7 days to nut it out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a Fringe Theory and not relevant to the modern papacy, nor is it relevant to current ecclesiology. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a weird melange of an article but ultimately it is mostly an WP:OR attempt to debunk something. There is no evidence in the article that this is a notable fringe theory. The supposed text cited is passed around like many other conspiracy theories and other fringe theories on the internet, but I see only the one source that there has been any attention paid to it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:08, 26 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. Nobody who is not a sockpuppet or a banned user has argued for the article to be kept. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comiso Airport Company

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

Management company of Comiso Airport is not independently notable from the airport itself. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I was canceled your changes, to show you that you are wrong, look at this page: In Italy, as in the whole world, every airport is subject to management by a company, it is obvious. I really don't understand how you can open a discussion. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Airport_operators_of_Italy, if you see the italian wiki: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Societ%C3%A0_di_gestione_aeroportuale_d%27Italia you can even find 20 Airport operators.

~~The fact that the company has a section on the airport site and not a separate site does not mean anything, also because the data is essential.~~ ~~See:~~ ~~Business name: SO.A.CO. S.p.A. – Società dell'aeroporto di Comiso~~ ~~Registered office: Piazza Fonte Diana s.n. – 97013 Comiso (RG)~~ ~~VAT identification number: 01083290880~~ ~~Share capital: 4.200.000 euro (in the article it says)~~

The airport is a state property, the company that manages (Airport operator) it is another thing, but this is so obvious that i think you are confused with other articles. As you can see from the logo in this PDF, SOACO is one thing (stazione appaltante or contracting authority), the airport is another thing:https://aeroportodicomiso.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Avviso_a_manifestare_interesse_1.pdf --Pasionpalau (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to point out that the article was created by a globally blocked long-term abuser (Sonny Solina), and Pasionpalau is one of his many socks that I asked for a block on meta. I don't know the en.wiki policies, I think his comments should be deleted. Sorry for my little English. Greetings, --Mtarch11 (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The meta request can be seen at this link. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep is a private company that manages the structure as in all airports--87.0.170.158 (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Striking vote by blocked sockpuppet. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mtarch11 and EdJohnston, just letting you know that this IP address has a similar edit history to the socks of User:Sonny Solina. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MrsSnoozyTurtle Of course, it is always he who continues to create other socks (see) --Mtarch11 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a standard run-of-the-mill management company that so happens to manage an airport. No indications of notability and no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP/GNG HighKing⁺⁺ 15:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
question The te are other 4 identical pages, we delete all: Aeroporti di Roma, Aeroporto Friuli Venezia Giulia (company), Società Azionaria Gestione Aeroporto Torino and Toscana Aeroporti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.168.30 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 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 Mayor of Virginia Beach#Election results. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Virginia Beach mayoral special election

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

A special election for mayor, so this was entirely a local election about a single issue. Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT. There is routine mill coverage all local elections have in a significant media market, but nothing that demonstrates notability. // Timothy :: t | c | a 02:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are grounds to nominate it for deletion. But the distinction that it was a special election, rather than one coinciding with other elections, is not something that makes sense being grounds. SecretName101 (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it to explain why it was a single local issue election. // Timothy :: t | c | a 02:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:EVENTCRIT talks about 'water cooler' stories, which is what this is. It is really not notable outside Virginia Beach, even though there is a population of 150,000+. Here's WP:EVENTCRIT, para 4: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. So, delete. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayor of Virginia Beach#Election results, where the results table is presented. While this is too local of an election to have overall notability for a stand-alone page, we should at least leave a redirect pointing readers to where the results are listed. Hog Farm _Talk 19:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Ehr

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

political candidate, never won election or any other notability DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although having run twice, he is a non-notable politician and does not pass WP:NPOL --Whiteguru (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidates for the US house are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. To be notable enough for inclusion here, he would have to show either (a) that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him into Wikipedia regardless of whether he won or lost the election, or (b) that his candidacy could be credibly claimed as much, much more significant than most other people's candidacies, by virtue of having received much, much more coverate than most other candidates got. But neither of those conditions has been met here at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Ho Chiu-yeng

AfDs and DRVs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ho Chiu Yeng

Articles for deletion/Sabrina Ho Chiu-yeng

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

Current sources doesn't passes WP:GNG. Lidsdonne (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lidsdonne (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expand. 219.73.73.107 (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand per what Dps04 referred to below. 219.73.73.107 (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a decent amount of substantial coverage of the subject in English and Chinese-language sources. Examples include: South China Morning Post, HK01, SCMP (again), The Strait Times, to name a few. Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. -- Dps04 (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage, just passing mentions. The previous titled name Sabrina Ho was protected by admins for vandalism and paid editing.Setreis (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above fails in WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is yet another recreation....Someone just bypassed the page protection with new article title. See also the log at Sabrina Ho (businesswoman), Ho Chiu Yeng, Chiu Yeng Ho, Sabrina Ho Chiu Yeng, Sabrina Ho, Draft:Sabrina Ho, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 November 15. Matthew hk (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for reopening and relisting the AfD following a talk page discussion, Daniel. I will post a followup comment within 48 hours after I finish my searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still believe the subject itself is notable enough for inclusion as a separate article. In addition to the sources I cited above, kudos to other editors especially Cunard's extensive research on the sources here and here. That said, other contributors especially Matthew hk have raised valid concerns regarding paid editing. I think the article in its current form is sufficiently neutrally-worded to be retained, especially bearing in mind that AfD is not cleanup, and that paid editing concerns may be adequately addressed by adding the {{UPE}} tag. However, if others are not with me, alternatives including a redirect to the Stanley Ho article or possibly drafitication may be considered --Dps04 (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the article is not overly promotional and that it is "sufficiently neutrally-worded to be retained". Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, it is fine for the article to be imperfect. Cunard (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Selected sources with analysis
1. "赌王25岁千金何超盈创业成老板 94岁老父感动万分" (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. 2015-10-26. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.
  This article contains biographical information about the subject. It notes that she was born 24 September 1990 and became director and CEO of a company at age 25. It notes that she was in a list of people targeted to be kidnapped in Macau several years before 2015.
2. 王晓易, ed. (2015-10-29). ""赌王"千金何超盈的非一般生活". NetEase. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.
  The article notes that her English name "Sabrina" came from the 1954 movie Sabrina because her father enjoyed watching films. She worked a summer job at age 16 in a court where she helped a judge with photocopying, coffee, and other tasks. It notes that she is concurrently the project director of Hewlett-Packard Asia Ltd., director of business development of Baiji Global Ltd. and director of marketing business of Molybdenum Co., Ltd. She graduated from Hong Kong University. She earned a Hong Kong real estate salesperson license and a chartered financial planner license. She helped establish the new hotel project Lisboa Palace in Hong Kong.
3. "何超盈伙教科文組織開發大數據聯同《福布斯》數據庫解決教育就業問題". Ming Pao. 2017-12-10. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.
  The article discusses her joining UNESCO as a strategic partner on January 1, 2018, for a minimum of three years. It notes that she will work with Forbes on big data and artifical intelligence. It noted that prior to joining UNESCO, her best-known work was on transforming Regency Hotel.
4. Tsui, Enid (2016-12-08). "Sabrina Ho looks to Macau art fairs and auctions to diversify economy away from casinos". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.
5. Tsui, Enid (2017-12-01). "Sabrina Ho artfully dabbles in cultural diversity, and tax havens". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-12-20. Retrieved 2017-12-20.
6. Twigg, Melissa (2016-11-25). "Rebel in White: Sabrina Ho". Tatler. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
  The article said she is the eldest daughter of Stanley Ho and Angela Leong. It called Ho "the perfect mixture of Asian ambition and British creativity" because beginning when she was 13, she attended a Yorkshire boarding school. It said she attended the University College London where she was planning to receive a degree in art history. Her studies were interrupted owing to "family reasons" and she needed to move back to Hong Kong in the middle of her initial year at the university.
  At 18, she recommended that her family buy Ladurée's Hong Kong and China rights. Although some meetings took place, her family did not purchase the rights since her mother was uncertain that people in Asia would purchase a lot of macarons. After another company chose to purchase the rights, her parents began "taking [her] more seriously".
  Ho managed the renovation of Regency Hotel in Macau. According to the article, she "spent many months researching the history and heritage of similar buildings in the city in order to restore the hotel to its former glory while giving it a contemporary twist". Ho collaborated with Karl Lagerfeld and Versace on Grand Lisboa. She started Poly Auction Macau in 2015. In January 2016, the art fair showed the art of 60 budding Chinese creators. The art was shown in 60 Regency rooms which Ho had "personally designed".
  The article discussed Ho's attendance and attire at the Queen Charlotte's Ball. Her date at the event was Archduke Alexander of Austria, though they were not dating.
7. Sagal, Virginia (2020-08-14). "We celebrate women's empowerment by interviewing Sabrina Ho". Augusta Free Press. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
  The Augusta Free Press is a magazine that serves Shenandoah Valley and Central Virginia. The article has an interview of Sabrina Ho (which is not independent), but it also has three paragraphs of coverage about her (which is independent). The article notes that Ho is "a powerful and successful woman who has broken away from the stereotypes and has achieved so much from a young age", is 30 years old, is the managing director of Chiu Yeng Culture Ltd, is a strategic partner for UNESCO, is living in Hong Kong, and supports the arts in Macau. It further noted that Ho is the direct and CEO of Poly Auction Macau Limited, a member of the Committee of Cultural Industries of Government of Macao Special Administrative Region, "the Co-Vice Chairlady of Bellissima Italia and the Honorary Ambassador Korean Culture of Hong Kong and Macau of Consulate General of the Republic of Korea in Hong Kong".
8. Blain, Robert (2018-04-23). "For the love of art: Daughter of Macao casino mogul is driven by her passion for culture and China's place in the world auction scene". China Daily Hong Kong Edition. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
  The article notes about Sabrina Ho, "Clearly in evidence, as she makes her mark in Macao’s auction and art scene, is the spirit of fair play and hard work instilled in her from a young age by her parents." She was born on September 24, 1990. It notes that she received a bachelor's degree from the University of Hong Kong in 2013. Her first job at Poly Auction Beijing was being a telephone operator. She later advanced to be the director and CEO of Poly Auction Macau in 2015. In 2015, she started Chiu Yeng Culture. In 2017, she "form[ed] a strategic partnership" with UNESCO by signing a "Strategic Cooperation Agreement" with Irina Georgieva Bokova.
9. "賭王千金何超盈貼地著$399 Zara 做聯合國最年輕拍檔". Apple Daily. 2017-11-14. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
  The article is about how Sabrina Ho signed an agreement with UNESCO's Irina Georgieva Bokova.
Additional sources

Here is an additional list of sources. Many of the sources in this section discuss Sabrina Ho's personal life (as opposed to her career) including her engagement, her planned wedding, and her giving birth to a daughter, which is why I did not include them in the first section of sources. The sources are ordered chronologically:
1. "賭王千金何超盈偕同性密友搶閘遊迪士尼". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-09-05. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
2. "何超盈迷幻街頭　鼻沾白色粉末". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2013-03-08. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
3. Zhu, Julie (2016-11-25). "Auction and Art Fair Organized Simultaneously in Town". Macau Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
4. "何超盈接受《人民網》訪問講香港夢". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2014-09-24. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
5. "網上佈局扮何家駙馬呃錢超盈遭冒認行騙　怒告老千". Apple Daily. 2016-02-04. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
6. Cho, Jan (2017-03-28). "賭王、四太女兒何超盈何超欣甜蜜姐妹情". Elle (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
7. "【add名人時尚】林心兒貼相洩密何超盈拖新仔去日本公告戀情". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2018-11-23. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
8. Zhu, Julie (2018-11-29). "Sabrina Ho Believes Macau Has Potential for Art Auctions". Macau Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
9. "【獨家】去年已訂婚何超盈認陀豬B三個月：計劃出年葡萄牙搞婚禮". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2019-03-08. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
10. "【疑細7年】何超盈哈佛未婚夫大起底教育世家祖母係全國人大代表". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2019-03-09. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
11. Yan, Alice (2019-03-09). "Stanley Ho's daughter Sabrina reveals she will marry Harvard student from northeast China". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
12. "Welcome to the Family | Sabrina Ho Reveals Harvard Student Fiancée". Macau Daily Times. 2019-03-11. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
13. "Sabrina Ho Is Engaged: Here's What You Need To Know". Tatler. 2019-03-12. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
14. "Meet The Hong Kong Scions Who Are Making Their Mark". Tatler. 2019-05-02. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
15. 黃欣華 (2019-06-08). "何超盈未婚夫Thomas大起底　出身教育世家屬宇宙勝利組！" (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
16. Fatt, Loh Keng (2019-06-09). "Casino king Stanley Ho's daughter Sabrina hosts engagement party, gets $87 million house". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
17. 張力文 (2019-06-09). "賭王千金何超盈挺肚收聘 24億嫁妝鎮嫩學霸". Apple Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
18. Tan, Kendra (2019-06-10). "Casino King Stanley Ho's Daughter Reportedly Received Over S$100mil In Dowry". Today. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
19. Molok, Natalya (2019-06-11). "8 Things To Know About Casino Heiress Sabrina Ho & Her Husband-To-Be Thomas Xin". The Singapore Women's Weekly. Singapore Press Holdings. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
20. "5 Golden Moments From Heiress Sabrina Ho's Engagement Party". Tatler. 2019-06-12. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
21. "【靈感自柯德莉夏萍】何超盈囡囡「荷包蛋」首曝光叫Audrey Rose". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2019-08-30. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
22. Yip, Jieying (2019-10-08). "Casino King Stanley Ho's Daughter Holding Her Wedding Banquet At The British Museum". Today. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
23. Fatt, Loh Keng (2019-10-19). "Macau casino king's daughter Sabrina Ho plans British Museum wedding in 2021". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
24. Yu, Helen (2019-11-08). "5 Things To Know About Thomas Xin, Sabrina Ho's Fiancé". Tatler. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
25. "【荷包蛋多人錫】何超盈寶貝女又有富二代契媽林心兒擺大閘蟹宴上契". Apple Daily. 2019-12-12. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
26. "【訃聞再揭秘】何超盈低調註冊做人妻哈佛尖子成何家女婿". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2020-06-27. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
27. "【產女1年復工】何超盈留家開UN青年大會意外洩豪宅千萬奈良美智名畫". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2020-08-07. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
28. 李星慧 (2020-08-21). "何超欣「千億女團」各有來頭　何超蓮、何超盈閨密團有義氣零架子". HK01. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
29. "【賭王千金】何超盈為愛女玩具消毒防疫　誕女1年修身成功曬V面+小蠻腰". Hong Kong Economic Times. 2020-09-09. Archived from 誕女1年修身成功曬V面-小蠻腰 the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
30. "【阿女係動力】何超盈絕密收身秘方曝光每日跳鄭多燕HIIT減40磅". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2020-09-10. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
31. 蔡曉婷 (2020-09-11). "產前腫如山賭王千金何超盈瘦身成功「腰比減肥前大腿還細」". China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
32. Tan, Kendra (2020-09-13). "Sabrina Ho, Daughter Of Late Casino King Stanley Ho, Shows Off Dramatic Weight Loss A Year After Giving Birth". Today. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 2021-01-24.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sabrina Chiu Yeng Ho to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Ho Chiu-yeng has received significant coverage internationally:
1. Britain: Tatler
2. Hong Kong: Apple Daily (Hong Kong), China Daily Hong Kong Edition, Elle (Hong Kong), HK01, Hong Kong Economic Times, Ming Pao, and South China Morning Post
3. Macau: Macau Daily Times
4. Mainland China: NetEase and Phoenix Television
5. Singapore: Singapore Press Holdings's The Singapore Women's Weekly, The Straits Times, and Today
6. Taiwan: Apple Daily (Taiwan) and China Times
7. United States: Augusta Free Press
She received coverage in 2005, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. Ho has received sufficient sustained significant coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people).
Cunard (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I expanded the article with some of the additional sources I found. Cunard (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known Hong Kong / Macau businesswoman, notability established beyond reasonable doubt by Cunard et al. Deryck C. 13:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has significant coverage and reliable source to justify keeping. VocalIndia (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as a businesswoman. Founder of Chiu Yeng Culture. CEO of Poly Auction Macau. SWP13 (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are enough references and coverage, while probably not enough individual, add up in my opinion to make the subject pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough references to meet WP:GNG. Sun8908──Talk 10:35, 31 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. There is a clear "keep" majority, but "there must be sources" is a very weak argument in view of WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Sandstein 20:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halina Buyno-Łoza

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

No claim of notability under WP:ENTERTAINER. No sources. Melmann 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Melmann 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very borderline. Her main claim to fame, I think, is her supporting role (wife of one of two main characters) in Sami swoi, which is part of a cult trilogy and most people in Poland recognize it, and through it, her. I don't think any of her other roles are particularly memorable (I couldn't find that she played a first role in anything aside pl:Prognoza pogody (film) one minor movie). She has an entry in [28], which seems reliable (as in, it is maintained by a respected university, and does not cite Wikipedia as a source...). Entry in [29] but that one may be more like a Polish IMDb. I can't find any discussion of her roles etc. in GBooks/Scholar aside of few mentions in passing (when the movies she played in are mention with cast listings). A few years ago Polish taboid reported that she was involved with the secret police and was imprisoned ([30]). If there is anything else it is not digitized. PS. The nominator incorrectly claims the article has no sources. It is undersourced, but it has some sources. Please don't make such misleading comments.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It may be borderline but this is not a BLP. From the article, it appears her dealings with the secret service and later imprisonment probably led to considerable coverage in the Polish press at the time. If we keep the article, it could well be improved by those fluent in Polish.--Ipigott (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ipigott, I checked Polish press (from a few years ago, it should all be online) and all I see is one tabloid article and one entry at an Internet portal. So the claim of 'considerable coverage' is not substantiated. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ipigott's reasoning. She is illustrative and emblematic of a period in Poland's history, besides per Piotrus being widely recognised in Poland. The strong probability is that additional sources exist; and if not contemporaneous press coverage of her imprisonment, then in histories of the period and of theatre in the period. Wikipedia is not well served by the removal of her article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ipigott and Tagishsimon. It is hard to assess the sources for a Polish subject whose life long pre-dates the internet, and lack of them in the article does not preclude notability. What is there now appears adequately sourced. I agree with Tagishsimon that "Wikipedia is not well served by the removal of her article." Espresso Addict (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to save this article, but we need more than wishful thinking along the lines of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I looked and couldn't find any better sources. She played in one cult film trilogy as a supporting character, and that was probably the highlight of her career. Is this enough? I struggle with seeing how she meets NCREATIVE, at the same time I do concur that the entry is more helpful than harmful. She should be notable, given her age, but is she? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see any of the of the "Keep" responses try to explain their view in light of the actual WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. I do see the argument that, on balance, this article may not be detracting from Wikipedia's overall goal, as it is not something problematic like a promo article for a company trying to pad their search rankings. But, I do not see how it meets the established criteria. I'm willing to even defer to WP:IGNORE arguments, especially in the light of the fact that any WP:RS sources that may be out there are likely to be in Polish, so improving this article may be very difficult for an average Anglophone editor, but if that's our argument, let's be transparent about it. Melmann 14:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your comment Melmann, and with due deference to Piotrus, I would point out that it is highly unlikely that all the newspapers and magazines of the period have been digitized for access over the internet. It's hardly worthwhile but if this were really important we could call on librarians to look into it and would no doubt find some interesting responses. The very fact that this phototek article provides such rich coverage of her film and tv career is evidence of her notability for Polish speakers. Let's forget about the constraints of entertainment and simply keep her article alive on the basis of general notability.--Ipigott (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott, Indeed, you are correct. Polish literary corpus is poorly digitized, so there may be sources. The issue is we cannot assume they exist just because they might. That said, I am also fine with WP:IAR here, as the odds are there is something out there, and the subject seems to me encyclopedic based on her one major role and enduring public recognition of it, even if said recognition is poorly sourcable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion currently is running along the lines of "there must be sources", but some editors have questioned that, and there have been few sources actually presented. Relisting in hopes that sources can be found to verify and establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If she "should be notable" according to Piotrus and is notable according to most others here then, if she does not meet our notability guidelines, the guidelines are in this case defective. The notability guidelines tell us they have occasional exceptions and to believe their criteria are infallible is to go against this aspect. I would be delighted if more sources can be found but deletion is most certainly not a good way of achieving this. Thincat (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Eddie's relist comment. Would love to see further discussion about this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Bittenbender

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

no evidence for notability . An administrator, not a scientist. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No evidence of notability is one thing but the argument that he is an administrator (an administrator, IMHO, brings to mind an administrative assistant or office manager, not an executive) and not a scientist is a bit ludicrous. Since when is there a hierarchy that a scientist trumps a business executive? Both occupations are important and one isn’t necessarily more important than the other. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable, independent reporting.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment. To be consistent, nominate Robert S. Barnett, his predecessor, for the same exact reason. Both are stubs. Both list only primary sources. Both were COOs of PA. If one is wiki worthy, both are wiki w. If one isn’t, the other isn’t either. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - article lacks notability and reliable, secondary sources. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) and general notability guidelines.--Kemalcan (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. From his title, he might be a lobbyist or public affair person, and he might have an advanced degree, but there's not enough information in plain English. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 29 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 USS Duffy (DE-27). Consensus was to redirect. Will add the one appropriate sentence to the ship article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles John Duffy

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Duffy (DE-27). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign not awarded any major medal played an insignificant role in Naval Battle of Casablanca) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Duffy (DE-27) as the ship's namesake. Doesn't pass GNG or SOLDIER. The nominator is again advised to please cite a policy-based reason for deletion when nominating an article; SOLDIER is a good rule of thumb but it is entirely possible for a military veteran to fail SOLDIER but pass GNG. Failing SOLDIER alone - which is what the nomiation statement, not the first described this way either, implies - is not a reason to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Duffy (DE-27). Advice given above by The Bushranger is endorsed. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having one of a class of roughly 500 ships named after you is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Duffy (DE-27), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:35, 28 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 20:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln American University

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lincoln American University

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

Advert, Non-Notable school, Possible Block-evasion. RS only namedrop, such as "So and so was killed, they were a teacher at Lincoln U." Even the accreditations are too questionable to prop up verification. Estheim (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2017-09 ✗ PROD, 2017-06 ✗ G11, 2016-12 ✗ G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and boy is that an uninspiring bot message here. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:TNT. Besides the lack of secondary sources, this page is littered with so many typographical errors as to make it uneditable. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 29 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. Sandstein 20:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palumõisa

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

in general, former villages in Estonia are not worth of its own article. Ad hoc solution: redirecting to List of villages in Estonia Estopedist1 (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep if the information is verifiable. This is a bit harder for an English-speaker to decide than a location in California. What I do know, though, is that the nominator's statement is untrue, Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary. Geschichte (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: There are thousand and thousand former villages in Estonia. Do we really want this superclutter for enwiki? If we want, then in general, there are extremely hard to find more info than 1-2 sentences per the former village. See eg et:Kategooria:Eesti endised külad ('category:Former villages in Estonia') --Estopedist1 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at the other language page while I suspect that with good research the article could be made to meet WP:NGEO "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. " but I don't know that. My own search is hampered by language issues. No objections to recreating an article where meeting WP:NGEO can be established. Jeepday (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All settlements, existent or not, are notable under WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:30, 24 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 20:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bincheng Mao

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

Most coverage I've been able to find online was only in relation to East Coast Coalition for Tolerance and Non-Discrimination, which he heads, and by NYU (which he is affiliated with) or nominal mentions on event pages. Seems like a clear case of WP:BIO1E. BriefEdits (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article doesn't warrent deletion based on WP:BIO1E because the figure, as demonstated in the current version, is not being notable only for a single event. Yes, he's been leading this organizationEast Coast Coalition for Tolerance and Non-Discrimination, but his works are notable in mutiple fields. There are many figures on Wikipedia who only worked on/for one entity, but their mutitudes of work make their artcle appropriate. For this particular figure, his works are notable in 1/ promoting equitable health care access for minorities (and won funding from the Clinton Foundation) 2/ organized and led efforts to combat racism amid COVID; 3/ testifiedd before New York State legislators to advocate for greater diversity for minorities in public schools and so on. LizzieCortes (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizzieCortes (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Literally thousands of Americans have stepped forward in the light of lack of government response to help fight COVID-19. If he gets a page, so do the Drag ensemble COVID Destroyers and 5,000 nurses in New York City. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable activist Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mortara

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

WP:BLP of a lawyer and academic, not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for lawyers or academics. The notability claim here is that he was lead counsel in a case that is "expected" to reach the Supreme Court -- except that according to the case's article, that's still purely unconfirmed speculation and not established fact. And as for the footnotes, four of them are his own primary sources "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers or organizations he's directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability, and two are from university student newspapers, which would be fine for sparing use for verification of stray facts if he had already cleared WP:GNG on stronger sources but do not count toward the initial question of whether he's cleared GNG or not. There's only one footnote here that comes from a real general-market media outlet, and even that isn't so much about him as it passingly mentions him in the process of being about the case -- so it's not enough to singlehandedly get him over GNG all by itself either if it's the strongest source on offer. Staff profiles and university student media are not how you reference a person as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep One of the articles is from Chicagobusiness.com, which seems like a reliable source. Another is an interview from the Mises Institute, which is a notable (if politically biased) source. This is in addition to the student newspapers and the NYT article mentioned in the nomination. I think this just barely establishes notability. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy organizations aren't media, so interviews on their own self-published websites aren't notability builders. Chicago Business is a short blurb in a listicle, so it would be fine for additional verification of facts if the rest of the sourcing were better, but is not in and of itself a notability-clinching source if it's basically the best source there is. As I already noted in my nomination statement, student newspapers don't help to build GNG at all, and the NYT article just namechecks Mortara's existence in the process of not being about Mortara. So no, none of these sources are enough to establish notability, barely or otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. Fairly run-of-the-mill law firm partner. BD2412 T 05:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mostly per WP:NOTINHERITED. Arguing a notable case is not the same thing as being notable yourself. And the only other source of notability we have is one of those spammy "here is the latest set of young business people whose publicists want us to publicize them" 13-under-13 (or whatever) listicles. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to agree with the WP:NOTINHERITED line of thought in this instance, and listicles aren't a great foundation for a biography either. XOR'easter (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, Mortara falls far short of Wikipedia's notability standards. He is involved with one instance of notable litigation, but the articles about the litigation do not talk about him in any detail.

I am also concerned about the possibilities for a COI regarding this page; the creator of the page seems to be connected to the law school where Mortara teaches. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per my standards for lawyers and per David Eppstein. He was Inn of Court and clerked for SCOTUS, amongst other activities. Note that the Federalist Society is not a bar association. He's also not a tenured professor. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 29 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 Relocating this deletion request from AfD to TfD. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Permastub

In my opinion, this template should be deleted because what do you want to inform with a sentence "however there are not enough verifiable sources on it, or it is a finished article." for an article indicated as a stub, where a stub means an obviously short but usable article? There may be very short and at the same time comprehensive article, but let's not confuse "you can't expand it" with "I don't know how to expand it". In addition, the template is unused--Ḥdiddān 16:08, 24 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. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 20:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sabuhi Huseynov

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

This article is also a candidate for deletion in other languages Az wiki and Ru wiki, Notability is under question. Doesn't meet criterias of WP:BLP--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There are a few (non-English) mentions of him that are discoverable; it's complicated by his name's spelling changing in different languages (Sabuhi, Səbuhi, Sebuhi). I tried to clean things up, but the article is still a stub. Carter (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National champion 2019, participant at 2018 European Men's and Women's Team Badminton Championships, 2020 European Men's and Women's Team Badminton Championships. Florentyna (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gold medal at 2019 Azerbaijani National Badminton Championships would seem to meet WP:NBADMINTON, "Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country" Carter (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 00:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Badminton. Carter (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't also a candidate for deletion in other languages Az wiki and Ru wiki, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.253.229.248 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please conduct the AfD process truthfully. The article is a candidate for deletion in AZ Wiki, RU Wiki, and TR Wiki Carter (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: About RuWiki: yes, the article is still under the deletion process, however, a notability of the person in accordance with RuWiki criteria for sportsmen seems to be achieved: the person is a member of the national team at the European team championship, and he is a national champion (2019, in a mixed double), all references have been provided above. Ahasheni (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kept in the RuWiki as of today. Ahasheni (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoglophie, requiring meeting multiple criteria would be fine, but I'm not sure that's what WP:NBAD currently requires. I think the criteria needs to be applied clearly and consistently (as best as possible). Carter (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, the item 5 of WP:NBAD is satisfied: (1) Sabuhi Huseynov has a gold medal in mixed double in National championship 2019; (2) Azerbaijan athletes regularly attend Summer Olympics. Ahasheni (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Hello! Sabuhi Huseynov is take part in many tournaments in Badminton.

2015 Badminton 5th Ruminİnternational Children Games(Team Azerbaijan). Link: [31]
III Международный фестиваль школьного спорта в странах СНГ(31.09.2015 Ulyanovks, Russia). Link: [32]
2015 Badminton İran İnternational Challange (12.02.2015 Tehran,İran). Link: [33]
2016 Badminton I.B.B Turkey International(19.12.2016 Istanbul,Turkey). Link: [34]
2017 The 26th Iran Fajr Badminton International Challange(09.02.2017 Tehran,Iran). Link: [35]
2017 Badminton European Junior Championship(11.04.2017 Mulhouse,France). Link: [36]
Badminton Iran Junior International Series 2017(22.11.2017 Semnan,Iran). Link: [37]
2018 The 27th Iran Fajr International Challange(05.02.2018 Tehran,Iran). Link: [38]
2018 European Men's and Women's Team Badminton Championships(13.02.2018 Kazan,Russia). Link: [39]
2018 YONEX Latvia International(31.05.2018 Jelgava,Latvia). Link: [40]
2018 YONEX Lituhanian International(07.06.2018 Kaunas,Lituhania). Link: [41]
2018 Badminton European Junior Championship(11.09.2018 Tallin,Estonia). Link: [42]
2019 The 28th Iran Fajr International Challange(04.02.2019 Tehran,Iran). Link: [43]
2019 Badminton Hellas International(02.05.2019 Thessaloniki,Greece). Link: [44]
2019 LI-NING Denmark Challange(09.05.2019 Farum,Denmark). Link: [45]
2019 Badminton Azerbaijan International(06.06.2019 Baku,Azerbaijan). Link: [46]
2019 Badminton Bulgarian International Championship(03.10.2019 Sofia,Bulgaria). Link: [47]
2019 Badminton Turkey Open(19.12.2019 Ankara,Turkey). Link: [48]
2020 European Men's and Women's Team Badminton Championships.(11.02.2020 Liévin,France). Link: [49]

Blackariteam🔸 (tauk)

User:Zoglophie The point is take part in Big Tournaments.That is also great result. The Tournamnets aren't easy to get join.The Player should get raking number and point for Tournamnets. For example: "European Championship" Sabuhi Huseynov entried 4 Times.For Azerbaijan. İf player doesn't have any good raking before 3-6 months European Championship, he can't take part in European Championship. In general, as a prize-winner of the national championship, he meets the accepted rules.Thanks for everything,İ hope all of us can edit Sabuhi Huseynov for Azerbaijani badminton player Sabuhi.

🔹Blackariteam🔸 (tauk) 17:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoglophie, by your understanding does he meet WP:NBADMINTON? My reading of criteria #3 (being a national champion) would clear the bar, albeit just barely. Although I don't think Azerbaijan fields an Olympic badminton team so criteria #5 might be failed. Carter (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zoglophie Carter Mr. You can chechk easly Azerbaijani National badminton player on Olympic 2020 raking list. Until 32-36 rakings are roading to Olympic games.and Azerbaijani player is 26 in Olympics. Badminton at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Qualification

🔹Blackariteam🔸 (tauk) 18:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question around criteria 5 (Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics.) is does "regularly" refer to an Olympic badminton team OR any Olympic team? If the former, then Azerbaijan might not quality; it looks like 2020 would be the first Olympic Games with an Azerbaijani badminton team. If the later, then it would meet the criteria. Carter (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: deleted from the Turkish language segment--78.109.48.253 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: deleted from the Turkish language segment-- Guys P

please try to understand, İ DELETE that Article,because it wasn't right and correctly. you can chechk from History. 18:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

And last result, i already showed all files and links to all of you. For this moment i have to wait untill Wikipeda editors' answers. Thanks for all answers and supports .

🔹Blackariteam🔸 (tauk) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kept in the RuWiki as of today. Blackariteam (talk) 20:56 , 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep (Per WP:NBAD) Zoglophie 18:05, 1 February 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.

[1] Smeyers, Maurits (1998). Vlaamse miniaturen van de 8ste tot het midden van de 16de eeuw : de middeleeuwse wereld op perkament. Leuven: Davidsfonds. pp. 187–188. ISBN 90-6152-598-5. OCLC 782834751.

[2] Larousse, Éditions. "Encyclopédie Larousse en ligne - Jacques Daliwe". www.larousse.fr (in French). Retrieved 2021-01-26.

[3] Scheller, Robert W; Hoyle, Michael (1995). Exemplum: model-book drawings and the practice of artistic transmission in the Middle Ages (ca. 900 - ca. 1450). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. pp. 233, 235. ISBN 978-90-5356-130-0.

[4] Fowler, Caroline O (2019). The art of paper: from the Holy Land to the Americas. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-24602-5.

[5] Delaissé, L.-M.-J (1966). "Une contribution capitale à l'étude du « style international »: l'édition de l'album d'esquisses de Jaques Daliwe". Scriptorium (in French). 20 (2): 281–284. ISSN 0036-9772. OCLC 5801106062.

[6] Kreuter-Eggemann, Helga (1964). Das Skizzenbuch des "Jaques Daliwe" (in German). München: Bruckmann.

[7] Ring, Grete (1949). A century of French painting, 1400-1500. Internet Archive. London: Phaidon Press. pp. 201, 244.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]