Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 19

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. Speedy Keep. Eminently notable. Significant coverage as full professor and entry in the The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science and Women in ichthyology (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 20:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Grace White

Edith Grace White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG as little/no coverage of her work.

Fails WP:NACADEMIC #4 is arguably failed due to the fact that there is hardly any evidence that her textbooks have been used or have impacted a "substantial number of higher education institutions".

Fails WP:NACADEMIC #1 as Google Scholar and other websites do not show "highly cited" academic work in "peer-reviewed scholarly publications", especially for a subject such as science where an increased number of citations are expected.

Fails the rest of WP:NACADEMIC as not eligible.

Note that I've used the information from the "Specific criteria notes" section to reach these decisions.

. Hunter 12:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:NPROF is a bit unlikely to be helpful for someone working in the first half of the 20th century, although one ref does claim that her textbooks were widely-used (for a possible meet of C4). We should evaluate her as a historical figure, and the two specialized encyclopedia/dictionary entries seem to me like enough for that. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, entries in The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science and Women in ichthyology are indicative of notability by themselves, and also make the existence of more sourcing highly likely, though it may not be digitized. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above !votes. WP:PROF is mostly geared towards helping evaluate scholars who are alive and active today, not historical figures, and citation counts for historical figures are generally unindicative. XOR'easter (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG: there are multiple independent reliable sources that provide sufficient coverage of the subject. WP:NACADEMIC is a red herring to weasel in subjects who don't already have biographical entries in legitimate encyclopedias. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, per above mentioned sources, and a hard WP:TROUT slap to the nominator for this highly misguided nomination. WP:BIO and WP:GNG are obviously satisfied here. Note that now an NYT obit has been added. Instead of piling on to Gender bias on Wikipedia and trying to delete biographies of highly notable female subjects, our efforts would be much better spent adding new such biographies to Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, JSTOR has quite a few published reviews of the subject's books, e.g. [12][13][14][15][16]. Nsk92 (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:POINTy nomination. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Simons (South Carolina)

William Simons (South Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reason TheColdPrince (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Wattpad. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as author - submitter obviously did this as I have been reverting (as other also have) their attempts to promote bookpad.site, as well as adding copyvio and unsourced content. Note from their removed talk page notices they have tried to create Bookpad.site and appear to have a clear WP:COI as stated in there userpage they are the founder. The AfD reason given above appears to be a cut and paste from this warning on their talk page and not about subject. As for this subject, passes WP:NPOL. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep South Carolina General Assembly member passes WP:NPOL. Hog Farm _Bacon 12:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Muddled nomination, member of South Carolina General Assembly.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Greenspan

John S. Greenspan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Seems promotional to an extent. Doesn't seems to fit WP:BASIC Sabrebofr (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sabrebofr (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His title of distinguished professor (emeritus) passes WP:PROF#C5, he has a 1990 honorary doctorate from Georgetown and a 1996 honorary professorship at the University of Buenos Aires, and these and his 2012 ADA Gold Medal Award for Excellence in Dental Research [17] seem likely to pass #C2. He has heavy citations for his work on AIDS-related oral lesions, enough to convince me of a pass of #C1. His books AIDS And the Dental Team and Textbook of Oral Cancer may (if they have enough reviews, which I haven't checked) give him another pass of WP:AUTHOR. The article is kind of cv-like but AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with David Eppstein, he has many citations in Google Scholar.Expertwikiguy (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He published a lot of papers and thus seems notable. No problem with article at all. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easy pass of WP:NPROF. WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NPROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bread (charity). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Mussie

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

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

Does not pass WP:NARTIST- most significant claim is the famous rappers that appeared on his single "On me". 1292simon (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Bread (charity) - The guy does not seem notable in his own regards, but he was the founder for Bread, so we could merge some of the information into there. Keeping or Redirecting could be other alternatives. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Bread (charity). Kudos to Foxnpichu for the fine idea. Lil Mussie can be described as both a rapper and a philanthropist, but his own article suffers from a lack of reliable media coverage to put him solidly in either camp. The charity has achieved notability though, and his efforts can be described there. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 20:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Bread (charity) as he does not meet WP:GNG. I could swear that I've seen this bio before but can't find it. Schwede66 02:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sérgio Trindade

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

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

As discussed at the April AfD, the subject appears to fail WP:BASIC. Sources provided mention involvement with the IPCC, but as discussed previously, notability is not inherited. Most of the sources available that are specifically about the subject are obituaries.

@Melcous, Buidhe, JFG, BEANS X2, Titanium Dragon, and Pburka: pinging due to your involvement at the first AfD. VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I participated at the DRV. I won't be too disappointed if this gets kept, but he really only received coverage because he passed away from COVID, which played up his collaboration with the IPCC and incorrectly called him a Nobel Prize winner (he wasn't, the organisation was, and I have edited the article to reflect this if kept.) As a point of comparison, Carlos Clemente Cerri another Brazilian scientist associated with the IPCC peace prize (per here), sadly passed away from cancer in 2017, and his passing was barely covered. I will note that many of the 14 Brazilian scientists associated with the IPCC in that blog post should probably have articles, but I'm not sure there's enough on Trindade to include him in that list. SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was the closer of the deletion review of this, which mostly covered the G4 speedy deletion of a recreation. I haven't really reached my own opinion on the article as yet, but there were a lot of significant opinions as to the validity of the original AfD, and as the participants of that have already been pinged, it feels appropriate to also ping the DRV participants who haven't participated here already. @Hobit, Robert McClenon, S Marshall, WilyD, Newyorkbrad, and StarM: ~ mazca ^talk 00:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The IPCC won half the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Now, of course, the award was for the reports. The IPCC is an organization: it's made of pieces of paper and polite legal fictions. It didn't write the reports. People did that. As of that time, Trindade was a "co-ordinating author": the most senior level of author in the IPCC. I can make an arguable case that he's a Nobel laureate. I know that there were more than 400 "co-ordinating authors", but if it's not them who won half the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, then nobody did. (SportingFlyer's position is that nobody did win that prize, but I find that difficult to agree with.) In any case, in our encyclopaedia where we're not allowed to delete articles about people whose "accomplishment" was to play professional sports in one event in 1967, townships in Where the Heck, Iowa (pop. 88) or that article about the precognitive octopus, to delete the article about this accomplished and well-regarded scientist of international importance is clearly perverse.—S Marshall T/C 01:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: Rajendra K. Pachauri was the individual who accepted the 2007 NPP representing the IPCC. It is entirely possible for a notable organization to be comprised exclusively of non-notable individuals, even though all organizations are "pieces of paper and polite legal fictions". Our secondary guidelines exist to help our coverage of borderline-notable topics be more consistent. We aren't concerned here with the rightness or wrongness of non-applicable secondary guidelines, or whether we pay too much attention to athletes vs academics, or whether the subject's work was important or noble. VQuakr (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my position, it's a fact. See our article at 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, specifically the IPCC section along with the relevant reference, noting the award was not given to individuals associated with the IPCC. In Mr. Trindade's case, this makes sense, considering he just wrote a chapter of a report. SportingFlyer T·C 09:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr:, you might not be concerned about whether our decisions are fair across fields or subject areas. I am. WP:OTHERSTUFF is part of WP:ATA, which is an essay that I'm free to disregard. ATA is just a laundry list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say at AfD, and I find a lot of its reasoning rather poor.

@SportingFlyer:, sportspeople get awards based on the achievements of their team, not their individual accomplishments. Why should scientists be treated differently?—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's a straw man - not only did Trindade not win the award, he didn't get any coverage from the time the IPCC won the award. Sportspeople get articles because they get coverage for winning awards, not because they win awards, and good coverage is what we're lacking here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, most sportspeople don't get good coverage at all. They get almanac-style entries in tables of results, which is no basis for a Wikipedia biography.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR keep sources I can find might get to WP:N but if so, it's just barely. But yeah, I think we should have this. Hobit (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, we should keep this article because you like it. Methinks IAR demands a higher standard of relevance. — JFG ^talk 11:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Besides being part of the panel that was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Trindade held various positions of importance within UN commissions and there are several references to him before his death, such as for instance https://polarconnection.org/profiles-advisory-bo/sergio-c-trindade/ or http://webtv.un.org/watch/world-chronicle-253-sergio-trindade-centre-for-science-and-technology-for-development/5762415228001/?term= or https://www.unmultimedia.org/avlibrary/asset/2121/2121041/ or https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-45670-1_2 or https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1326570 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9RsPPGD69I.. --Pesqara (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, none of those appear to be independent coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 16:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The combination of a role on the work that resulted in the 2007 Nobel Prize and a distinguished academic career should be enough. That is the policy-based reason. I will also add my personal opinion that sometimes deletion controversies make the subject famous for being famous, but the subject qualifies for inclusion anyway. Also concurring with comments of User:S Marshall. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – However respectable this person's work is, it still fails the criteria for inclusion spelled out at WP:NACADEMICS. Neither can notability be inherited from the full IPCC organization, comprised of thousands of scientists, that received a Nobel Prize. The only new event since the first AfD reason Mr. Trindade received some attention in 2020 is that he died of COVID. Sadly that doesn't make him more notable. — JFG ^talk 11:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article has been around for months and still is nothing more than a stub, and I'm not seeing mention of him in anything since his untimely death. While his death was unfortunate, being a member of the IPCC does not make you notable unto itself, nor does dying of COVID-19, and it seems that the brief spate coverage about him basically existed because of his death due to COVID rather than him being an overall notable figure. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that your statements are incorrect. There are several mentions of him before his death (see links above in my previous comment); and, this article has not been around for months, since it was deleted shortly after its first creation and recreated (by me) just a few weeks ago. --Pesqara (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ultimately I just don't see that PROF, GNG, or BIO is met here. (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A quick search of google books for "Sérgio Trindade" indicates that he is frequently referenced in published books on renewable energy and food security. Google doesn't give a good view of the contents of the books, and libraries are hard to access these days, but I think there is evidence to keeping the article even if it is hard to build it out right now. Some sources are in Spanish. I will put his article on the list of scientists needing improvement for the December Philadelphia WikiSalon. We have some Spanish speakers. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find significant references and citations in numerous academic journals. He appears to be a recognized subject matter expert in his field, and with the direct association to the Nobel Peace Prize, I see no issue in satisfying notability. This article is well referenced - O Globo should certainly count as a reliable secondary source.--Concertmusic (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Harrison

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

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. UPE. Puffy. Lots of x of y refs. scope_creep^Talk 16:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - CEO of a major financial company. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and Bearian. John Hancock Financial is major enough for a BUSINESSPEOPLE pass IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited from the role. Regarding WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, the company is not listed in the Fortune 500. 1292simon (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - CEO per WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE and separate notability based on the fact she is the first female CEO of a well-known company. However, this article and John Hancock Financial for that matter could use some clean up. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 15:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. CEOs of major companies should be presumed to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: CEO of a major insurance company John Hancock Financial Services Inc. which was listed in a Fortune 500 list in 2004. Passes WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE.Ruqayya ansari (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm willing to withdraw the nomination, if the other two editors who opined it should be deleted say so. scope_creep^Talk 13:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was refocus as List of Rayark games. The discussion in terms of purely counting is a pretty clear no consensus. However, in actually reading what is written it is clear that there is consensus against having an article as currently conceived. So rather than doing a straight no consensus and ending up with an outcome pretty much no one has advocated for, I'm closing with a refocus result. If, after a typical amount of time, someone wishes to renominate it under this new focus, this discussion should really be considered as a no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rayark, Inc.

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

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

Does not pass WP:GNG- lacks coverage in independent sources. 1292simon (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Rayark. Inc is a Taiwanese-based company and most of their coverage is in Chinese; a quick glance at the Chinese version of the page reveals a much more detailed page with numerous independent sources cited. A quick search also uncover coverage in languages like Indonesian as they predominantly market their games in the Asia region. Someone just needs to find the time to improve it, or maybe just transcribe the Chinese page into English. Haleth (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I checked the Chinese article but most of the sources are press releases for their games rather than actual coverage about the studio. The prose part is largely unsourced. Coverage of them in English is nearly nonexistent besides the fact that they forced out an executive for expressing support for Hong Kong protests... not exactly a good look. But not enough for an article to be notable. I am not convinced this passes GNG, but if people do find sources in other languages, it can always be recreated then._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of Rayark games. Not sure what coverage is specific to the studio itself but I've found some weak press on their individual releases: [18][19][20][21][22][23] and this was just on the games without their own articles. Whether this stays "Rayark" or becomes "List of Rayark games", there is enough sourcing altogether to support an overview article of such a list. czar 00:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I checked both English and Chinese coverage, neither has sufficient WP:RS coverage, mostly primary source and promotional xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NCORP is nobility standard the company to needs to reach and the references don't support an article, unless somebody can dig up a really popular game they created. scope_creep^Talk 13:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to List of Rayark games per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion as suggested by Czar. The article contains links to a list of notable games developed by Rayark. There is sufficient coverage about the games to support a list. A list would comply with Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates which says an advantage of a list is for "Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia".

  Cunard (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references fail the criteria for establishing notability of this company, topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. Also, Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion makes no mention of converting a failed topic to a "List of" article as an alternative to deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename per above suggestions. There is sufficient coverage about the notable games to support a list.VocalIndia (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG Eyebeller (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IDK - I have nominated two articles before that I believed failed WP:GNG, but apparently there are more hidden sources that I cannot access using my search engine for some reason. Rayark may appear to fail WP:GNG but several of its games have ranked near the top of the App Store for their category, including Cytus, Cytus II, and Soul of Eden. Some of the people part of this also have Wikipedia articles on them, including The SxPLAY, and several of the voice actors that Rayark recruited are also notable. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to find information on the company. So I disagree that it completely fails notability guidelines, but I also disagree that it passes them either. It probably is 50% notable, 50% not notable. Aasim (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes same with your opinion ! The best way is to change the name as list. IMO VocalIndia (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think it isn't proven that this topic meets WP:NLIST. 1292simon (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a search for Rayark yields [24]. Not sure if the sources listed here are reliable, though. Aasim (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and rename per above. It seems to meet WP:NLIST with multiple notable games and it seems like a reasonable grouping. Not sure it's not notable as-is, but this seems like the best way forward for now. Hobit (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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)} 10:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Tantillo

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

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG notability. With a WP:BEFORE, I could not find any reliable sources on him that gave in-depth coverage. The only significant coverage I've found are from non-independent sources, and the article looks like much of the same. (The article also oversells some of the sources out there, such as saying he "generated controversy", citing this interview on NPR.)

Two of the most reliable sources I've found are passing mentions: This Rolling Stones article mentions that a reporter (who previously was a co-worker to, and had a large falling out with, Bill O'Reilly) said that he used the term "The O'Reilly Factor" first. This NYTimes source mentions him in passing, that he was hired as a representative for the Shoup Voting Machine Corporation. Although he might be a somewhat well-known marketer, especially since he's had media appearances, I don't see any sources that shows he passes Wikipedia notability. - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although several of the sources provided are just passing mentions or lack the independent editorial oversight needed to meet GNG, some of the recently added ones do provide the kind of in-depth coverage that supports the consensus to Keep.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plastique (comics)

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

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Jhenderson777 with the following rationale "Stop prodding AND AFDing so many related content simultaneously. Nobody can improve content with this kind of persistence to delete everything.". Sigh. Let's try to stay civil, shall we? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination's assertions seem false as the topic already cites satisfactory sources such as The Encyclopedia of Supervillains and DC Comics Encyclopedia which demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage of those half-in=universe 'encyclopedias' is mostly a plot summary anyway. Did you see any analysis in them? If so, indulge us and quote it, if you'd be so kind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this current discussion, some contend that quoting sources would be a copyright violation. And that even listing links to sources is excessive. Darkknight2149 has bravely risked sanction by doing so and I am content with their findings. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aha. Nobody, there or here, is claiming that a reasonable amount of WP:QUOTE is a problem. You can quote a few sentences from a source. I have done so on many an occasion. If you are really terrified of the sanctions, I give you permission to email the relevant quotes to me, and I'll repost them here myself taking the responsibility and "bravely risking sanctions". And if you decide not to do this, than I stand by my claim that the sources contain no in-depth discussion of the subject, and particularly, no analysis, and further, I have to question whether you even read them, or are you just giving us WP:GOOGLEHITS? Ągain, please prove me wrong and put a sock in my mouth by providing quotes from the sources you found which show existence of an in-depth, non-plot summary analysis. The ball is in your court. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quoting a few sentences isn't going to do anything. You, TTN, and a couple of others have a habit of claiming that every source is "all plot" or a "passing mention", even when that's explicitly not the case and nearly everyone else in the discussion is voting Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danger Room, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intergang, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godspeed (character) are three of the many examples of this.

Even below, TimothyBlue bizarrely claimed the coverage provided is all "terriary and primary fancruft sources", which is a factually nonsensical claim. You both say that it's all trivial mentions with no critical analysis, even though this is nothing but critical commentary on two different iterations of the character, this is significant coverage (discussing the character's history and how they were adapted for the TV show), this source also goes over the character's history and development, this source discusses the differences in iterations and the character's previous live action appearances, this (the only primary source in the lot) also provides some commentary, this discusses the difference between iterations, and this source has 2-3 whole paragraphs of critical commentary.

If you think the sources are insufficient, you guys (as a generalised group) should start using more honest arguments than the usual "all plot = any plot", "everything is a trivial mention", "reputable third party reliable news sources are actually primary sources or Fancruft™ because I said so", ETC. For example, if you think it's difficult to build an article with the coverage provided, then just say that. If you are simply unfamiliar with the sources cited, there's no shame in not voting or opening an inquiry at WP:RSN either. Darkknight2149 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Upon a quick search, I was able to find coverage and critical commentary on the character.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/48229-who-is-plastique-bette-sans-souci-the-flash-is-giving-the-dc-villain-a-heroic-makeover

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a586088/the-flash-to-introduce-dc-comics-character-plastique/

https://www.eonline.com/news/564179/the-flash-casting-scoop-it-s-time-to-meet-plastique

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/heres-wholl-be-playing-dc-character-plastique-s1-cws-flash

https://cwtampa.cbslocal.com/2014/08/05/the-flash-plastique-casting-news/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/cws-flash-adds-rakes-kelly-frye-supervillainess-plastique-222500451.html

https://tv.avclub.com/the-flash-plastique-1798181883

https://www.cbr.com/smallville-arrowverse-characters/4/

Darkknight2149 14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Critical commentary, huh. Let me take a look.
    • [25] - seriously? That's your idea of critical commentary? That's plot summary in three sentences (and that's stretching it, as not the entirety of those three sentences are about her). Well, we are off to a good start...
    • [26] That's better as it is about her (not that it is overly long), but it is just a plot summary with a mention she appeared in a single TV episode.
    • [27] That's identical to the first source, the article is not about her, and it just summarizes plot involving her with mentions of her name in 3 sentences...
    • [28] That's even worse, her name appears in a single sentence, that's the very definition of trivial, in passing coverage per GNG.
  • Sorry, I stop here. If you want me to treat you seriously, please stop WP:GOOGLEHITS strategy, and weed out such crappy sources that certainly DO NOT contribute anything to GNG requirement. I don't have time nor will to see if any other links are better, but I am quite disappointed you'd waste mine and others time with this strategy. I expected better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shit, some of these were sources for Wade Eiling that got mixed in. Removed. Darkknight2149 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Summary-only descriptions of works" WP:NOTPLOT is WP:WWIN. Article sources do not meet WP:GNG or WP:FICTION, they are terriary and primary, not secondary WP:IS WP:RS sources with WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that would establish notability. Sources listed about are either fancruft, promotional, or mentions, neither meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is a plot summary, WP:OR / WP:SNYTH, nothing properly sourced for a merge.   // Timothy :: talk  15:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TimothyBlue: All of the sources above except the CW source are secondary and absolutely none of them are ALLPLOT. News articles and critical analysis are not "fancruft" or "promotional" either. Thank you for showing that you didn't check any of them before voting. Darkknight2149 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the sources above, which in my opinion are enough to pass GNG because they contain real world information about the character. Also, and I recognize this is not based in policy, but I think that when comic characters are adapted for other media- in this case multiple television shows- that also speaks to notability. Plenty of characters have simply appeared in a few comic issues and were never heard from again. Rhino131 (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rhino131: Did you read them? Please see my analysis of the first four above, which are bad, weak, bad, abysmally bad. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did indeed read them, and they are enough to pass my admittedly lower standards for sources. But I see no reason not to take users seriously who have lower standards than you. That is how we become uncivil and argue with each other. Simply disagree, and move on. Rhino131 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Majority of the links above range from a couple sentences of basic plot summary to a couple paragraphs of plot summary. They're not saying anything relevant. They're mostly just confirming the character exists and giving a little bit of background on her. It's basically just trying to assert inherited notability due to the popularity of the show/DC TV franchises. There is nothing from which to build even a meager article, so this fails WP:GNG without a doubt. TTN (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: When a comics character appears in live-action movies and TV, it usually gets some coverage, including casting and reviews. Keep per above examples. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The character has received sufficient significant coverage, in my view, which warrants a standalone article, although there is certainly room for improvement with the citation of reliable sources. Haleth (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot summary alone is not significant coverage, per WP:NOTPLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are secondary sources about the character, which have also have at least some real-world information. Daranios (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you link to those good sources, and quote the real-world information, you mention? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closer. Please consider the quality of arguments per NOTAVOTE. We started with the claim there are no good sources. Sources have been presented as a rebuttal, fair enough. The sources have been then criticized for being insufficient (passing mentions/unreliable/etc.). This has been ignored, and followed by boilerplate votes which do not present any new critique and just assert notability. Ignoring valid critique with claims WP:ITSNOTABLE is hardly best practice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not say that the criticisms of the sources have been ignored; they have simply not been agreed with. Certain users think there is enough to pass GNG and so have said keep. They are not required to agree with you. Regardless, I'm sure the closer will be able to consider the quality of the arguments without you telling them to. If the arguments are weak it will be apparent to the closer and that's fine. Rhino131 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have started a Reception section to show that there is, in contrast to Piotrus' analysis, at least some evaluation rather than pure plot-summary information in the listed and other sources. It should not be surprising that this comes late in the deletion discussion: This is one of many recent deletion nominations within this genre, delivered with high frequency, which hardly allow for an appropriately thorough search for/through the sources. Daranios (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reception section is a badly needed step in the right direction, but the sources are still passing mentions (aside of plot summaries), as can be seen in how short it is. And let's face it - there is little to do to make it longer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As of the current version of the article, source #1 is a news article saying that the character has been cast with no particular commentary. The cited quote is not significant commentary in any way whatsoever. #2 is an episode review that doesn't focus on any actual analysis of the character. #3 is a trash CBR listicle that should never even be used on Wikipedia. #4 seems to not be working. The current information is simply fluff meant to look good, which is the problem with much of the defense in fiction AfDs. Instead of simply trying to draft the article or work on the parent article, we get these half-hearted attempts at "saving" them. TTN (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • As for "how short it is": I said I have started the section. I have a bit more to add. I don't really expect it will satisfy you, but how about giving it more time and discuss the details afterwards?

@TTN: I made a mistake in link #4. Thanks for the tip, I have changed it. I hope it works now. Daranios (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, that's all I wanted to do as Reception section at this point. I don't say it's epic in either size or insight, but it's a paragraph and it's not "all plot-summary". And what do we need for an article? There should be more than "half a paragraph" or "a few sentences", and that's the case if we do some more sourcing on the other sections. And taking the publication history/TV appearances with who portrayed the character together with the reception, it's not WP:ALLPLOT.
@TTN: Former #1 is needed to give context to the next sentence; I have also added another rating part in there. #2: How is "the character's portrayal in x is more nuanced than in y", etc. plot-summary and not about the character? #3 Why should a "listicle" not be used? And in general, by no means do I say this article is in perfect shape. But how is deleting the current article (rather than further improving) a gain for Wikipedia? Its existence also does not prevent anyone from improving any parent article. Daranios (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You're basically taking extremely minute sentences and giving them vastly more weight than they deserve. These are not articles about the character. They are articles about the shows in which they discuss every trivial addition to each show and give basic context for the non-comic reader, and the context from those is extremely weak. There are certainly comic and pop culture-based articles that do provide actual commentary, but these are not that. This is fluff that looks nice on a surface level when prettied up for the article, but then reveals itself to be hollow when looking at the sources.
• CBR and Screenrant release some twenty to forty listicles every single day. They have no quality control or vetting. Their level of quality is WatchMojo level trash pumped out for clicks. I think their news articles are generally fine for verification, but their lists are something that should never infect a single article. Top X lists are generally seen as low quality regardless, but those two sites in particular take it to a whole other level of terrible.
• If the quality of sources is so low that one needs to scrape the ground underneath the bottom of the barrel to find anything even slightly relevant, someone has lost the plot. It's no longer about improving the article. It's just about one-upping the "other side" regardless of the outcome. Then the article just gets nominated again in a few years when it actually has seen no improvement. All that wasted effort could be spent fixing a character list entry or the main article. TTN (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the sources wrong? Is the content incorrectly cited? If not, I don't see why they should not be used. Is the article now worse than before? If it's about improving the parent article, why not either vote merge or put in effort there? Daranios (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They add nothing to the article, so they shouldn't be used. Sources that fail to meet the qualification of significant coverage are irrelevant to the topic. "She has flirted with good on occasion" and "a classic DC villainess" are not commentary. They're minor little quips with zero thought put into them. These little three paragraph news articles are not providing anything significant. You don't need an entire chapter of a book on the character, but you at least need something a few steps above that. Merging is only useful if the article to be merged has something worth merging, like in the case of a relatively minor character only having a single suitable source. This is not at all such a case. TTN (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To give an example, it's like if we had made an article on Minecraft Steve due to the character's inclusion in Super Smash Bros. That was flatly turned down due to being not extensive enough, despite the wealth of news articles covering the addition. I'm sure you could take the same strategy of cherry picking very specific descriptions from those various articles, but it would be trivial coverage. TTN (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll just add that CBR-and-like listicles have been declared unreliable for pretty much everything here. Granntted, the discussion was short, but it was hardly hidden, and it was unanimous. No prejudice if anyone wants to restart it at RSN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's very interesting. To a few details: "She has flirted with good on occasion" is, as I said, just the necessary context for the next sentence. If a character is considered by a secondary source to be a minor character (like Doctor Spectro) or "a classic character" to me is indeed an evaluation, in this case a positive one. In contrast to Steve (Minecraft), opinions on this article differ. Also in contrast to that one, we have the coverage in the different comics encyclopedias in addition to the news articles, and we have the whole publication history/appearances in different media sections, which can be sourced both by books and news articles. In addition to the "listicle" (which does at least a bit more than give "a brief description of why stuff is on the list"), two other news articles come to similar conclusions about the topic. Putting them together, I don't think I have blown that out of proportion.

I would still be interested in how deleting this article is supposed to improve any "parent article", and which one that might be.

Aside from that, not wanting to continue this endlessly, I guess we can agree to disagree. I am waiting on which opinion the closer will form with some anticipation. Daranios (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The more divided the article structure, the more attention is split between them. If you have a character of dubious notability or simply no notability, it's a waste of time and effort trying to pretty up one rotting branch of the tree when the base of the tree is completely neglected. Even in the case someone providing a couple decent sources, it's generally better to include those in a main article (whether the first appearance of the character or a character list) rather than some pointless permastub, but the general trend of these AfDs that lean more towards keep/no consensus always seems to leave a half-baked mess of an article. It's especially weird when they then sit for another five years only to be nominated again and then deleted. I've seen this so many times that it's just bizarre to me. I guess there's not much point in further discussing the sources other than I simply cannot evaluate them as significant coverage in any way. TTN (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Let this page stay. She has been a notable Suicide Squad character. I also support the suggestions that were made by @Andrew Davidson:, @Darkknight2149:, @Rhino131:, @Toughpigs:, and @Haleth:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sourcing is not in-depth enough to show that it passes WP:GNG, unless there is a suitable redirect target. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Some significant additions have been made to the article in the past 2-3 days, and I hope some reviewers may take another look. To me, there is enough referenced support to keep. While I do not agree with how the de-PRODer put the comment made, I do agree that a whole set of related articles is undergoing AfD, and I would much prefer to keep the entirety of the set of articles, which, as a whole, provide what I consider to be encyclopedic knowledge worth reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concertmusic (talk • contribs)

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 - deleted via G7 by @Fastily:. GiantSnowman 11:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo De La Guardia

Paolo De La Guardia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. De-PRODed by creator on the basis that page created back when Trinidad league was in list of fully pro leagues, which is irrelevant to the current assessment of the league. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jairo Lombardo

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

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. De-PRODed by creator on the basis that page created back when Trinidad league was in list of fully pro leagues, which is irrelevant to the current assessment of the league. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think WP:GNG is met here. SportingFlyer T·C 10:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NFOOTBALL. The only way that it could survive is if GNG is be met. And I don't think it can be. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 20:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep had participated in professional footy, being dead doesn't means he fail GNG. Mr-5 / ^{M ✉ / C🖋} 09:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the coverage appears to be rather routine and trivial (e.g. mentions in match reports); I'm not seeing a GNG pass. I'm also not seeing any appearances in a league listed at WP:FPL which would qualify him for WP:NFOOTY Spiderone 12:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bolton (clown)

Tom Bolton (clown) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable street performer. Fails WP:GNG Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you....? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability criteria; can't find any reliable sources Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, No independent reliable sources to prove notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The quote about someone saying he should be famous, doesn't make him famous. Nothing found as to why he's a legend. Oaktree b (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

La Espuela Coal Mine disaster

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Espuela Coal Mine disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is this real? I tried to find the mine but all I could find was a mine in Villanueva de Córdoba, Spain. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yes it’s real, see 1 and 2. Sadly it looks like the region has lots of very small, very narrow mines with virtually no safety for the workers. Fatalities are common so this wasn’t an unusual event. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for finding sources (and contemporary ones at that). I was writing a "lean delete" comment about this article last night and couldn't find sources, but fell down a rabbit hole on another of the articles created by the user that created this one, eventually finding sources that pre-date that wiki article. (was worried about a possible hoax, but it looks like the Spanish language sources were just harder to find). Chris857 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Bryan

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

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

This article is about a dog trainer and actress. Their only acting credit is credited as 'Cafe Patron'. The dog trainer TV 'appearance' is on a show called 'Right this minute', which comments on viral videos. They apparently commented on one of her videos - not a biographical source by any means. The only independent source cited is from 'The Sunny Coast Times', which is the alternative weekly for their area. I've looked and have not found better sourcing, so I believe this article topic does not meet WP:GNG nor any of the categories at WP:BIO. This should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete may be a case of to soon - nothing notable at this stage. Fails WP:GNG. NealeFamily (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps a worthy topic, and someone of mention, but not enough notability on her own at this stage. peterl (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly not notable as an actress, and her role as a dog trainer lacks the independent sourcing we would need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Rosario

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

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Appears to fail WP:GNG based on my search, I located the best four articles about him and included them at the end of the page. These are three stories from The Los Angeles Times, his local newspaper from his college career at UCLA, and one transactional article about his signing with the Carolina Panthers in 2012. I don't consider this enough to meet GNG, but I will defer to the community to form a consensus. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Multi-sport star who tallied > 2300 receiving yards at a Power Five School, including 1161 as a senior. See here. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH with massive coverage, including national coverage, in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Examples: (1) Nelson Rosario stepping up at WR, ESPN, 8/13/10; (2) Fired up Rosario sparked UCLA comeback, ESPN, 10/9/11; (3) Nelson Rosario Is Beginning to Catch On, Fox Sports (via LA Times)], 11/2/09; (4) Receiver Rosario is back on shelf, The Sun, 11/11/10; (5) UCLA expects much of Nelson Rosario, LA Times, 10/13/11; (6) 3 things you should know about … Nelson Rosario, Orange County Register, 5/20/11; (7) Rosario now 10th on UCLA receptions list, Orange County Register, 11/16/01; (8) Rosario, Jarrett eyeing NFL opportunities, The North County Times, 1/10/12 (1,374 words, available via Newslibrary.com); (9) UCLA unleashes its ‘Dog Pound’, Orange County Register, November 4, 2011; (10) UCLA Expects Much of Nelson Rosario, Aberdeen American News, 10/13/11; (11) Bruins would welcome more out of Rosario, Daily Breeze, 10/5/01; (12) Bruins Will Take More Rosario, Los Angeles Daily news, 10/5/11; (13) Expectations high for Rosario, Long Beach Prss-Telegram, 10/5/11; (14) Time running out for Rosario to sprout for UCLA, North County Times, 5/21/11; (15) Rosario's weekend will be jumping, Orange County Register, 4/14/10; (16) Sophomore Rosario looks like blast from UCLA's receiver past, Long Beach Press-Telegram, 11/12/19; (17) Receiver Rosario's Size, Athleticism Reminds Neuheisel of Former Bruins Standout, Los Angeles Daily News, 11/12/09; (18) Leaping to, a Conclusion UCLA's Rosario takes penchant for jumping all the way to the NCAAs, Daily Breeze, 6/10/09; (19) Bad news for Nelson Rosario, Orange County Register, 10/30/08; (20) Flashy freshman is catching on, Orange County Register, 8/24/08; (21) Rosario beginning to shine, Orange County Register, 8/23/08; (22) Land or Sea Opponents learn never to be surprised by accomplishments of Magracia, Rosario, San Diego Union-Tribune, 6/10/08; (23) BOYS PREP ATHLETE OF THE YEAR: Multifaceted Rosario just couldn't stay still, North County Times, 6/7/08; (24) TRIPLE-THREAT ROSARIO GETS JUMP ON FOES Wildcats' multi-event track star also basketball, football standout, San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/11/08; (25) Three leaps of faith for Rosario El Camino champion's hamstring passes tests, San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/11/08; (26) Senior wide receiver Nelson Rosario key in football’s comeback against Washington State, Daily Bruin, 10/9/01. Cbl62 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – bradv🍁 03:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neverending Nights

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

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

Article seems to come across WP:Promotional in nature. Attempted to do a google search for WP:Before could not uncover anything substantial or significant coverage from reliable sources to verify the notability of this subject. Was going to PROD, but perhaps a consensus on AfD would be more effective at gauging whether it meets WP:GNG. I personally don't believe there's anything salvageable, save for a brief mention on the legacy section of Neverwinter Nights (which I have already done so). Haleth (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Haleth (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As written, clearly fails WP:NFICTION/WP:NMEDIA/WP:GNG and I am not seeing any good sources to improve this. The best is the WP:INTERVIEW linked in the article: [29] but that's not enough. The PCGamer-UK coverage does not appear substantial. The brief mention in [30] is, well, brief and in passing. Is there anything better anyone can find? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those pages you cite indicate they are essays, not policies or even guidelines. You fail; please try again. — Maneshypos (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not have the sources to improve this to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DSTLD

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

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

Essentially advertising. The contributor's edit history indicates possible coi for this and other articles DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There is a fair amount of coverage on various women's magazines that includes some analysis around the new material made from Eucalyptus they are using for their Jeans, instead of cotton. I think it probably sufficient to satisfy WP:THREE. scope_creep^Talk 13:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The coverage mentioned above sems to be essentially promotion for their jeans, placed by their PR rep in the appropriate magazines. Getting such articles is what PR people do. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fundamentally based on promotional pieces, with no real independent notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article appears to be well-referenced and supported by independent and reliable sources. It also seems factual to me - I don't detect an overly promotional tone.--Concertmusic (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (WP:TNT). Geschichte (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Civmec

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

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

Corporate article of questionable notability with no independent sources. The sources are the company's own and LinkedIn. Appears to be undisclosed paid editing being moved from draft space to article space after being declined. No significant coverage found. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree this appears to be paid editing and very partial. Main contributor is called ArafuraClassOPV, the name bound to the subject matter. Whole article is written in badly formed English, such as "The company has manufactured from Naval ships to oil refineries...". Teraplane (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, multiple issues. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've no doubt a publicly-listed A$400m-turnover company employing 2,000 staff is notable in the 'real world' sense of the word; it seems odd that better references cannot be found to satisfy WP notability (my turn to try, I suppose). Equally odd, if they really engaged a COI editor to cobble this together, you'd have thought they'd manage something better than this. But I guess stranger things have happened... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There appears to be quite a lot of news coverage on Google News, particularly of the shipyard (Forgacs Shipyard) that it took over, but also of its mining business. While the current article is awful, the subject probably is notable enough for some sort of coverage , with at the the least a redirect to Forgacs Shipyard if the community does decide to apply WP:TNT.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It seems to be paid editing as well as blatant advertising. The whole facilities section uses 'our', which seems to tell me that they might be writing on behalf on the company, or that it was directly copied from some parts of its website. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Promotional article , seems to be done by paid editor Alex-h (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pennridge–Quakertown Thanksgiving Day Football Classic

Pennridge–Quakertown Thanksgiving Day Football Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. If we allow this article to pass Wikipedia's standards, we might as well create articles for every single other high school sports rivalry in the United States. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 01:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Quite agree that we don't want articles on every high school sports rivalry in the United States, but there are exceptional cases and this is one. This is a 90-year Thanksgiving tradition in Bucks County, and the article is well written and well documented with > 100 citations to reliable sources. I give this one the benefit of the doubt. Cbl62 (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Invariably, a national news org/network will talk about this football game on Thanksgiving, even in passing. It's a unique game and definitely notable. Nate • (chatter) 02:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per both comments above. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Undeleted so that discussion may continue here, someone will need to clean up the AfD closure templates. – Athaenara ✉ 17:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cbl62's reasoning and arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as I don't agree with the nom's reasoning and the game likely passes the GNG. The article is not about a single game/event, it's about a longstanding rivalry, and I think the coverage of that rivalry sets it apart from other similar topics in a way that prevents the slippery slope the nom speaks of. The rivalry itself passes the GNG (I'm going to add sources like this, this and this, to say nothing of the huge amount of sources already in the piece) and that should be enough to keep the page. Alyo (chat·edits) 22:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't think this will set a precedent for retaining every single school rivalry, if you look at the actual article. A hundred lovingly, individually cited news articles for game results should at least justify some benefit of the doubt! jp×g 12:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I can't see the additional sources such as mccall.com and theintell.com since they're geo-blocked so can't vote a strong delete (though theintell.com is clearly local, and mccall.com appears to be a women's clothing website?), but I am concerned the vast, vast, vast majority of sources are local, and I can't find anything about the game that's not in the prep sports section of local papers, with the exception of the game's listing in a Wapost listicle. I would assume a notable youth sports rivalry would have been written about or covered in non-local sources, since I think the vast majority of high schools have one of these rivalry games, and I find myself agreeing with the nom here. WP:NHSPHSATH is designed for athletes, but youth sports reporting is so common I think it should apply to general discussion as well, and this article fails both of those tests at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 14:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @SportingFlyer: FWIW, mcall.com is the website for The Morning Call. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, that makes sense. I was throwing an additional "c" in there. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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