Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 25	January 27 >

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. — The Earwig ^talk 02:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Career Insights

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

Seems to be a page made for a payment, sounds promotional; check the founders' page and there, it says that a major contributor to that article appears to have a close connection w/the subject. Refs aren't too great; only small regional references as far as I saw. Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 23:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:TNT, and WP:MILL. With peacock language like "international digital technology company with a focus on offering e-work experience in Digital Project management" this would need to be started from scratch to be an encyclopedia article. Based on the local sources of suspect reliability, I think it's not worth our time. It seems like florid language has been used to create a veneer of importance for a run of the mill computer company, one of thousands, and one of hundreds in Nigeria alone. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. I have not found any solid coverage and the language of the article is indeed promotional. The latter wouldn't be a problem to correct if the company were notable, but its not.Less Unless (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.. Non notable Jenyire2 (talk) 19:13, 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 delete. — The Earwig ^talk 02:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Springs, California

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

This looks like another map interpretation problem. Small scale topos either show nothing or show this as a water feature; aerials show nothing at all. The GNIS source is again a large-scale map. I don't know what Durham says, but searching doesn't pull up anything I can identify with this location, not helped at all by the fact that "Rock Springs" is a common place name component. At any rate there's no indication that this was anything notable, whatever it was. Mangoe (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Former settlement that has no notability.TH1980 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because is has not been demonstrated that it is a former settlement with much or little notability. Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jairaj Varsani

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

I was not able to find any sources to show a passing of WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Gets plenty of hits but coverage lacks depth. The best I could find was this but even that source only address him very briefly. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is no longer required, I have replaced the sources with more reliable sources from Books / Newspapers — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDP-Trooper1777 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit concerned that Shepherd Management - an agency for actors - is not an independent source. Varsani appears to be a client that they promote. As explained on my talk page, the other sources only provide a name check (i.e. he is only mentioned once, so not significant coverage that addresses him in depth) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real notable coverage, bit part roles not enough to establish notability. Comes close with the BAFTA junior nomination, maybe in a couple of years, but they didn't win it and it's still only bit roles. Canterbury Tail talk 15:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as there's no significant coverage. May be WP:TOOSOON, but it's a no for now.Less Unless (talk) 16:19, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Fixing closure. Original nominator's withdrawal comment below. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been convinced that the article is clearly warranted and further editing to fix issues rather than deletion is the answer. Thanks for the feedback. Bacondrum 10:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Running Waters

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

This article relies exclusively on claims made by an unreliable source, a 19th century colonial, evangelical missionary. Colonial accounts from this era are famously racist and often wildly inaccurate. The one contemporary source, is Geoffrey Blainey, a highly controversial historian in regards to Aboriginal Australians and the culture wars, and Blainey is relying on the same aforementioned colonial account. This article was created by an editor who is now indef blocked for dedicating most of his efforts here to attacking an Aboriginal academic [1]. The editor who created this article also runs a site dedicated to attacking the same Aboriginal academic and Aboriginal people generally [2]. Looking at the way this article is phrased, the weird and irrelevant choice of images - why did we have an image of blood letting [3]? I believe this article was created to make Aboriginal Australians look like violent barbarians and play down the brutality of colonialism. Sadly this kind of nasty attempt to imply Aboriginal people were savages is common here in Australia. If this story was true we'd have numerous reliable sources, the events are fairly recent in histories page, no evidence of Aboriginal oral history documenting these events, which historians agree are usually highly accurate [4]. At the very least his contributions about Aboriginal Australians should be gone over thoroughly. Bacondrum 22:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nominator doesn't present any policy-based reason. The claim that [th]his article relies exclusively on claims made by an unreliable source is obviously wrong – it cites 6 sources. The nominator's characterization of Ted Strehlow is not supported by his article. Blainey is a highly credentialed prolific author and academic. His views on Aboriginal history, as shown in Triumph of the Nomads (1975) and subsequent publications, have been described as groundbreaking and sympathetic to Aboriginal people. The article's creator's circumstances should play no role in assessing the article. It is unclear which phrases the nominator objects to, and irrelevant pictures have been removed. It is also unclear how the article was created to make Aboriginal Australians look like violent barbarians and play down the brutality of colonialism. The nomination the descends into a blatant assumption of bad faith and hypothesis, appealing to evidence of absence, and presenting an unrelated link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If others feel the article is not meant to demean or attack Aboriginal people then fair enough. I see a lot of false equivelence and racism in Austhistory99's activities here. I do assume bad faith on the behalf of user:Austhistory99 they've been indef blocked for editing in bad faith which was mostly focused on attacking Aboriginal people and he runs a website littered with profoundly racist and deeply offensive content relating to Aboriginal people. I may be wrong and accept it if I am, but Austhistory99's efforts off wikipedia speak volumes:

"We on the Centre-right appear to be losing the day-to-day ‘cultural-war’ because we have real, fruitful lives and don’t spend mind-numbing hours on the keyboard ‘re-writing history and ‘the narrative’, like our Progressive-Left opponents do. Nevertheless, if we have some spare time it is worthwhile lobbing into Wikipedia ( the Oracle of the Progressive Left!) some real history from time to time. In the long run it will help our cause in the cultural wars. Today Wikipedia approved my entry on the Aboriginal inter-tribal Massacre of Running Waters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Running_Waters" - Austhistory99 @https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/09/something-wiki-this-way-comes/

Bacondrum 05:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concerns about the motivations of the (now-blocked) creator of the article may be valid, but I have to agree with Michael Bendarek here that there's no sound policy-based reason for deletion of this article. While some on the left disagree with some of Blainey's historical views, there is no question that he is a well-respected Australian historian and certaintly isn't someone where we can just disregard his writing. My feeling (in good faith) is that the nom's concerns about the article are really concerns about ensuring a neutral point of view and could be easily fixed by some edits to the page rather than deleting the article. As Wikipedia requires alternatives to deletion to be considered first, editing the article to improve it should be the first option. Deus et lex (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per posts above, the article is apparently about a notable event, with citations to reputable sources, and does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. (Note that "created by now-blocked user" is not listed as a reason for deletion. In particular, in the absence of evidence of ban- or block-evasion WP:G5 does not apply.) If the article is biased, then edit it accordingly to make it neutral, instead of deleting it. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair enough. I'll withdraw this AfD and work on improving the article. Bacondrum 10:46, 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) 13:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alstom Citadis 305 (Sydney)

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

Content forking, is already or can be covered at CBD and South East Light Rail, Light rail in Sydney#Rolling stock and Alstom Citadis. Not sufficiently different from any other versions of the Citadis to require a stand-alone article. Caen5120 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom as a not-split-worthy content fork. per the main article on the type, the title is also erronious as the Citadis 305 is also used by three other systems. Nothing to merge as all pertinent detail is alread in the main article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 27 January 2021
Delete - per nom. There are also details of Australian versions of this tram here Alstom_Citadis#Oceania. Teraplane (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not necessarily in protest of this if the community finds the article as unecessary but as an example, various rolling stock on Melbourne's tram network which are likewise in a common "family" of trams that already have an existing article, still have their own Melbourne specific articles up. ie. The C-class trams are Alstom Citadis 202's, the D-class trams are Siemens Combino's, the E-class trams are Bombardier Flexity Swift's. Not sure what the standards are. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:42, 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) 04:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckmere Buses

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

Only decent coverage is 2 Eastbourne Herald articles - not enough to meet WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Such as? The sourcing in the article is crap. The only decent looking BBC ref (archived here) is 5 sentences long. SK2242 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SIGCOV, of which there is barely any for this minor bus company. SK2242 (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, NEXIST only points out that lack of sources doesn’t mean no notability, not the case here. I strongly urge you to reconsider your !vote. SK2242 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that you can have a charity and community transport service which is not known and written about is absurd. Finding sources is just a matter of looking. See here for example – professional coverage of the bus industry which naturally competent and clear. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide more detail as to the level of coverage in the source plus the editorial standards of the website? I still don’t see any significant coverage. SK2242 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find the source to be quite satisfactory and it demonstrates that the nomination is erroneous. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is perfectly fine thank you very much. That still does not look like significant coverage and I have no idea how reliable it is. Nothing erroneous with this nomination. SK2242 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated by the nom, the brief BBC coverage is the only reference currently in the article that can actually be used to try to establish notability - the remainder of the current sources are either press releases or the company's own website. I did some searches, both under its current and former names, and really did not come up with anything at all that can be considered WP:SIGCOV. I found a one-sentence mention in a travel guide, here. And there are a couple of articles in local news sources, such as this one, which is just a local report on a bus' wheels being stolen rather than any actual information or coverage on the company itself. Pretty much the only coverage I could find that talks more about the company in a greater extent than a couple of sentence is this blurb in another travel guide. WP:NEXIST is only a valid argument if there actually is significant coverage that can be found, and there just really does not seem to be on this small, local company. Maybe a mention & redirect to Berwick, East Sussex could be possible, but even that seems like it would be a bit undue coverage on what looks to be a fairly non-notable business. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP, niche/local coverage only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet GNG or ORGCRIT/NCORP and BEFORE did not show SIGCOV from IS RS. Routine, mill, normal coverage does not meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 12:20, 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. — The Earwig ^talk 02:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ForgetMeNot

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

non-notable app, no coverage or meaningful reviews CUPIDICAE💕 21:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per a lack of notability. The article's chief contributor, Offish tema6120 (talk · contribs) is presumably the same tema6120 who developed the app. While I commend them for their hard work in creating this polished open source project, Wikipedia probably shouldn't be promoting it yet. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTABILITY. None indicated. GenQuest ^"scribble" 18:32, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorkhali Fazil Degree Madrasah

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

The madrasa fails to show signs of notability. The majority of the google search results on it bring up this article or the logo uploaded in commons. The school does not even seem to have its own website. Instead on LinkedIn it says to visit the Wikipedia article for more information. And in the article, the article itself was linked as a website [5]. An article about this school on Bengali Wikipedia was deleted in December 2020. NJD-DE (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NJD-DE (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NJD-DE (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG; does not have multiple sources addressing the subject directly and in detail. The behaviour of the person who operates the Linkedin page (presumably the same person as the article creator) gives the impression that this article was created purely for promotional purposes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NSCHOOL, WP:MILL, and WP:TNT. I agree with the reasons above, and in addition, this seems like a run of the mill school, one of thousands of small madrassas in Asia. I don't consider small private religious-based schools to be notable, since anybody with a small amount of capital and an axe to grind can start one, and granting a degree needs to be verified with a reliable source. The wording and grammar are cringe-worthy. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Nom Jenyire2 (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT) or NBUILD. Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in-depth. None of the sources in the article are IS RS with SIGCOV and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV. Article does not meet NBUILD, "…they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, the type all schools receive in local press. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 04:43, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sage, Kern County, California

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

When the GNIS source is a large scale topo map, that is never a good sign, because it implies that it doesn't show up on smaller scale maps. And that is the case here, and the usual 1-to-24k maps have no label and show at first a single building and then add a water tank and various other buildings, in a configuration that changes considerably and which is unsurprising for an area that is barely out of town even in the oldest maps. Searching is well nigh hopeless what with all the sagebrush, but Gudde does show up, mentioning a "Sageland" mining camp from back in the 1860s which may or may not have anything to do with this spot. I'd say this fails verification. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched JSTOR and Google Scholar using "Sage California" "Kern County" and "Sage, California" "Kern County" and found sage (sagebrush), Fort Sage, California, Sage Publications, and so forth, but nothing about a Sage, California in Kern County. These and other searches found a lack of any reference to a town / settlement of this name inside Kern County. Broader searches were impractical because sagebrush is all over California. Paul H. (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Tkacz (actor)

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

I do not think that this person qualifies under BLP rules. Also, I have it on good authority that picture in the infobox is actually of his twin brother :) Nadzik (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nadzik (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON at best, failure of WP:NACTOR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete. nn per WP:NACTOR. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails as a non notable actor. Cuoxo (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. he does not met WP:NACTOR. --Kemalcan (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure why people are stating he fails WP:NACTOR, when according to imdb at least, he has had prominent roles in three films; one of which appears to be a starring role. ExRat (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per TOOSOON. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can't possibly fail TOOSOON if the subject has had prominent roles in at least three films. See WP:NOT YET (actors): "A good example of this is Paris Jackson, as seen at this Articles for Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. At the time of the discussion, she had been announced as the star of a film that would be released a year after – however, the film had not actually been released yet. If or when the film is released, and if Jackson is the star of the film, she likely will merit an article, but not until then." ExRat (talk) 19:22, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shantanu Goenka

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

Promotional and non-notable BLP. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a quick and non exhaustive search and found two pieces in the Hindustan Times 1 2, one in Verve Magazine, and one in Medium.com dating overall from 2005 to 2015 so this is a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 26 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 17:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 21:06, 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 deleted as G4. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jugraj Singh (Author)

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

Non notable author. Authored one book so far. No coverage for the book and author found in reliable secondary sources. Clearly fails GNG at the moment. Dial911 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G4; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jugraj Singh (author) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. It has been most likely recreated by a sock. RationalPuff (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sockpuppeteer confirmed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jugrajsingh7 RationalPuff (talk) 10:32, 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 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Nigam

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

WP:NACTOR requires that the actor should have significant roles in multiple movies or TV series(emphasis on “multiple” ) The subject of the article doesn’t seem to satisfy any criterion from NACTOR. I believe this is way TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the one case of a role that might add towards notability, it is not even one of the "main" roles, but a recurring one. We have never come up with a full agreement on what is and what is not significant, but one role is not multiple, and in this case it is not even unambiguously significant. I am reminded of how we do not have an article on Elizabeth Barondes even though in the first two episodes of Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman she was one of 9 main cast billed performers in the opening credits. To be fair this was a case where what was a significant role just got cut a little into the show, if the pilot had not worked and had been made into a film as was the backup plan, Barondes would clearly have a significant role in a notable production. Of course I think Kenneth Kimmins would probably be able to be counted in a significant role in Lois and Clark even though he never got top billed. Of course Kimmins had several other roles, including one listed as main cast in the Sitcom Coach, so if that ever becomes and article and ever then comes up for AfD, the Lois and Clark role will not need much discussion. Unless we go down the road that Bernard Klein is a cult favorite with cult following. He is one of maybe 4 roles that are unique to Lois and Clark and not from the larger Superman universe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analysis by John Pack Lambert. Shrikanthv (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above. Cuoxo (talk) 19:39, 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 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto in Scorpio generation

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

Doesn't meet general notability guidelines, could fall under WP:QUACKS. Suggesting either a total delete or a merge with Milennials pinktoebeans ^(talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evolutionary Astrology seems to be the nonsense this is all about. It (the article) is full of bull, and needs WP:TNT. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 21:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it anti-scientific garbage, it's not even noteworthy anti-scientific garbage. No sources about this specific idea exist outside the fringe bubble, and thus, we've neither the means nor the justification to write about it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia does not exist to document every junk theory out there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the sources and left a comment at the talk page. I'm open to revise if more independent sources are added, but currently I see no evidence that the article meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia. —Paleo Neonate – 20:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Cuoxo (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. We are not a web host for all sorts of astrology trivia. Some of the prime sources appear to be tangentially related to the topic. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are yet to prove notability Jenyire2 (talk) 19:15, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodian Democratic Society Party

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

A Cambodian party that was created nine days before the only communal election it ever seems to have stood in. A single source, I can't find any others. The claim about support by the notable Rong Chhun or CITA is not confirmed by the source. Zarasophos (talk) 17:02, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 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 and redirect to Northeast Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. Daniel (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Northeast Conference Men's Soccer Tournament

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

Per the excellent reasons raised at this AfD for the 2018 tournament. My concern is that there do not appear to be independent sources covering this tournament in depth either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale and consensus at 2018 AFD - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northeast Conference Men's Soccer Tournament as a plausible search term. I'll note the article in the other AfD was eventually redirected there as well. Seems like a reasonable outcome. Smartyllama (talk) 15:19, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I have vacated the above no-consensus closure. The correct consensus of this debate was to delete. Notability has not been sufficiently established. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Kricket Challenge

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

Following this brief disucssion at WT:CRIC, it doesn't seem this tournament is notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, just because some notable players were there, it doesn't make this tournament notable. Fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search for site:espncricinfo.com "Ultimate Kricket Challenge", where I'd expect to find coverage of any major cricketing event, finds a passing mention in 1 (one) article. Rest of coverage seems to be promotional / listings. This should probably be assessed against WP:NTV as well as / instead of WP:CRIN. Spike 'em (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 12:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, broadcasted on major networks, features best-known players, if there's only one mention on Cricinfo then we may as well take down other articles such as Everest Premier League that have been voted to keep, SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; possibly warrants a redirect and a sentence or two in ~~indoor cricket~~ single wicket cricket per WP:ATD as it could be argued that it meets WP:NEVENT (novel format). There is coverage, but a lot of it is nothing more than reworked press releases, and the remainder is not enough to meet WP:GNG. It's possible that future editions will generate more independent coverage from diverse sources, and should that happen the article can be recreated. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a redirect, I think it should be to single wicket cricket; see my comments below. Adpete (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that may be more suitable (amended !vote) – in any event, a brief summary and probably a redirect should be retained if (as seems likely) consensus determines this does not fulfil the criteria for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CRIN. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep as a draft in case there's future editions that generate more coverage? SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article is largely promotional, highly unlikely ever to be notable. Nigej (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could perhaps have a 'Cricket tournaments in Dubai' page which mentions it? Don't think one exists yet but they seem to hold a lot of tournaments which are not notable on their own but overall the numerous tournaments could be listed somewhereJagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some examples and I'll draft up. SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak keep - this seems to be a form of single wicket cricket, which is notable enough to have its own article, and there have been a few tournaments of this form over the decades [6]. That, plus the notable participants, makes it pass WP:GNG in my opinion. WP:RS coverage here [7], the Hindustan Times; and perhaps more significantly, in Wisden [8] - I know it's just a reworked press release, but it's still Wisden. If deleted, it should still get a mention at single wicket cricket. Adpete (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 07:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Adpete. extra999 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's shit, obviously, but it does seem to be notable enough to have gotten some coverage. I happened to catch 5 minutes of it whilst channel hopping, which was about four minutes more than it deserved. I suspect it's big on the Indian subcontinent and just because things are shit we don't need to delete them (I mean, England in the 90s were really shit, but we keep their tours). Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few more points in support of my "weak keep": (1) Nowhere does WP:CRIN define what makes an event notable, as far as I can see; so we're on our own working that out. (2) As a made-for-TV event, it might qualify under WP:TVSHOW, which says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience". On the other hand, it also says "a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage". To me that says this is definitely notable if it becomes a regular event, but is borderline if it turns out to be a one-off event. (3) But even as a one-off, the notable participants, and its similarities to the historically important single wicket cricket, push it over the line as "weak keep" for me. (4) Against the keep, is the total absence of independent press coverage; i.e. every media article I have found appears to be a press release. Certainly some truly independent discussion would help its notability. Adpete (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- aaaaand one more curiosity: I have just noticed it was not played on the broadcast dates, because on the broadcast dates Rashid Khan was in Australia playing BBL [9]. So it's more a made-for-TV special, for better or worse. Adpete (talk) 02:39, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayas Shilpa

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

No indication of nobility. Terribly fails WP:CORP RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:11, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dhananjay Diwakar Sagdeo

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

Not sure how this passed AfC. Not notable beyond the award he received, the 4th highest civilian award. Not seeing enough to meet GNG Gbawden (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete' I did add a link to the article that gives some idea of the tribal groups he works with. I see no actual claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no claim to notability. Melcous (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can not find enough in-depth coverage for a WP:GNG pass, and doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:MILL. I can't emphasize enough that he got "India's fourth highest civilian award". There's lots of medical and nursing professionals working amongst scheduled tribes in south Asia. There's a whole set of articles; see Nursing in Pakistan and Nursing in India, for example. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 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 delete. — The Earwig ^talk 02:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Losee, California

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

Again, I don't know what Durham says, so taking to AFD. Not in Gudde, no GNIS entry, not on topos. Newspapers.com results are for last names. No indication of anything meeting WP:GEOLAND here. Hog Farm _Talk 16:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Durham has the usual "map shows a place called Losee" with no context and nothing calling it a settlement, notable or otherwise. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked through JSTOR and Google Scholar and found nothing for Losee, California, except a number of people with the surname Losee. Paul H. (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above opinions. Cuoxo (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND, per above --DannyS712 (talk) 02:06, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gimbal, California

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

Don't know what the sole source (Durham) says here, but it doesn't seem notable. This place does not appear on topos. No GNIS entry, not in Gudde. This calls it a railroad switch. No evidence that WP:GEOLAND is met. Hog Farm _Talk 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Using "Gimbal, California", a Google Scholar search yielded; "Your search - "Gimbal, California" - did not match any articles." The same result occurred for "Gimbal California". Using the same search terms in JSTOR yielded "No results found". Otherwise, there seems to be at least handfull of persons with the surname Gimbel to be found in California. I did not find anything of any significance about a settlement called "Gimbal" in California. Paul H. (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources come even close to verrifying this is a significant place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, claims of settlement fails WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For exactly the same reasons as all of the other thousands of GNIS/Durham-sourced stubs created by Carlos in 2009 which has to be the worst case of editor-negligence that I've ever seen and which we are ~6 months into clearing up with no end in sight (sigh). He literally spent maybe a couple-three minutes making each article back in 2009, even assuming good faith he was transparently just doing this so he could compete for the top spot on this list. As a result, here in 2021, 12 year later, we have to spend a week or more discussing each one at AFD to get them deleted if the PROD is declined. Fails WP:GEOLAND, mischaracterises Durham. EDIT: sorry to sound off about this but it really gets my goat when I see that I spent 2-3 times as long PRODing an article than the creator did creating it. FOARP (talk) 13:35, 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) 16:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

József Boda

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

Has played 158 mins of professional football, giving presumed notability under WP:NFOOTBALL but otherwise spent most of his career in the amateur third tier of Hungarian football. During a WP:BEFORE search centred on Hungarian sources I found this trivial mention and this piece in a blog. Blogs generally aren't given as much weight as WP:RS in a deletion discussion so I believe that Boda József fails WP:GNG and should be deleted as per consenus at many similar AfDs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet any reasonable notability guidelines. We need to fix our currently absurd football notability guidelines so they will be reasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total game time is less than 2 matches, and there is clear consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALl is insufficient when GNG is failed. Giant Snowman 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conducting a WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing reliable and significant. Of the opinion when a subject doesn't pass the basic notability requirements (WP:N minus all those SNG's) nothing found anywhere else should be sufficient to make that specific subject notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Take it to a blog or some other site if you want it on the internet. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ARose Wolf 17:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG. Cuoxo (talk) 19:41, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scovern Hot Springs, California

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

Connoisseurs of these discussions will guess right off that this is a former resort, and yes, that is indeed the case. Or one could just as well call it a hots spring that once supported a resort. Both of the facts are easy enough to document if one goes beyond just strip-mining GNIS and Durham. As to the question as to whether it is notable for what it was/is in reality, I'm leaning in the direction of "no": information barely goes beyond the raw fact of its former existence, that the remains burned down in 1971, and that the springs are still there, on private property. Mangoe (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Appears to be a former resort. No indication of ever having been a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per outstanding improvements by User:Netherzone. This was a former settlement. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it may not be considered a well-known formerly inhabited place, it is indeed a notable hot spring. I have improved the article to reflect that, adding sections for history and water profile and three additional citations in reliable sources, bringing the total to five. I will continue to improve it. The article should be kept per WP:GEOLAND. Netherzone (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to the possibility of notability, but in that case the article will need to be renamed to reflect that it is a geographic feature and not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: If kept, I now think (due to improvements) it could run as either ~~I agree that if kept, it will need to be renamed~~ Scovern Hot Springs or ~~rather than~~ Scovern Hot Springs, California. It seems that at some point a redirect was created. If there is an admin or other qualified person to do that who may be watching this Afd wants to do a name change, that would be great. BTW, I found and added six newspaper references, including the Los Angeles Times. The hot springs were a popular spot for tourists in the 1930s and 40s, there was a dude ranch, hotel, bathhouses, and an annual rodeo was held there for years. It seems everything burned down in one of California's ubiquitous wildfires. I am just now discovering some of the archaeological history of the cite, and will also add (hopefully before the AfD is closed). A large cave with prehistoric artifacts was discovered nearby. Many hot springs were used by indigenous people for centuries before settlement by others; this may be the case here as well. Netherzone (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many hot springs in the United States had resorts either built on them or around them? Do we give an article to a hot spring because it exists? Do we give it an article because it had a resort built on it? What makes that hot spring more notable than any other? Where is the significant coverage? Where are the reliable sources? Before you quote an SNG, I get it, its probably notable according to an SNG and the article will probably be kept. That is the problem. Its only notable because of a criteria Wikipedia places in its guideline. Wikipedia makes it notable rather than the coverage. --ARoseWolf 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Tsistunagiska, Please do a BEFORE search. If you would like to see the sources, see the article. It now has 14 reliable sources in books, newspapers, journals and websources including governmental sources such as NOAA. (And that is before adding any archaeological sources.) Regarding your statement that Wikipedia makes the Scovern Hot Springs notable rather than the coverage, that is quite incorrect, as the vast majority of the sources on both the hot springs and the former hot springs settlement are from many years before Wikipedia existed. I'm having difficulty understanding what is meant by "That is the problem." Netherzone (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you would assume I didn't do a BEFORE search is troubling too. I, in fact did do a BEFORE search as I always do. I also looked at all 14 sources included in the article and I found many to not be as reliable as some would say in these situations. A lot or routine and local coverage you would expect for a location at that time, similar to the tourism commercials you see on television these days. National Geographic does a lot of these. Their work on geographical locations around the world and in the US is quite extensive and could be seen as routine for them. It's what they have done. It's what they do. It's in their name. My questions were valid questions. According to USGS estimates there are more than 1600 thermal-spring localities in the US and more than half are situated in the three States of Idaho, California, and Nevada. Wyoming, including Yellowstone National Park, contains more than 100 hot-spring localities, alone. I've been to a lot of these, even those more secluded. We have hot springs all over Alaska. My question was a simple one. Of the more than 1600, why is this particular one more notable than those? What makes this one different? The argument a lot of times is that there must be something there. Ok, lets see it. My comment wasn't a vote. I am very much wanting to see what you come up with. So please stop questioning my judgement when its unwarranted as I haven't passed judgement. I made a comment. Thank you --ARose Wolf 20:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment using JSTOR, I found that according to indigenous oral histories that the sites of Isabella, Bodfish, and Scovern Hot Springs were the locations of prehistoric / historic Ttibatulabal villages according to page 635 of:

Park, W.Z., Siskin, E.E., Cooke, A.M., Mulloy, W.T., Opler, M.K. and Kelly, I.T., 1938. Tribal distribution in the Great Basin. American Anthropologist, 40(4), pp.622-638. Paul H. (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul H.: thank you for that citation, I will look it up and add it to the article. I've discovered there are four distinct names for the same hot springs at this location, so I'm also looking under those names. @Magnolia677: if you find a moment, please have a look at the improved article, it has been developed from a 3 sentence stub to a proper article now. Netherzone (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: I found a write-up about Scovern Hot Springs on pp. 66-67 of Kern Canyon, Lake Isabella and Walker Basin, Kern County, California: Geology and Mining History: Field Guide by Gregg Wilkerson, California State University, California. There are a set of road-geologic maps that accompany this field guide. Paul H. (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H., thank you for three good finds. I'll add any relevant info to the article + the citation. I appreciate the time you have taken to discover these sources. It's good to know about Wilkerson's work. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY after Netherzone's improvements. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 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 delete. — The Earwig ^talk 02:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley McKessock

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

Fails WP:GNG. As he is clearly not notable and the article was made by a family member, I have no clue why this lasted 9 years. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Absolutely non-notable. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per basic notability criteria WP:N. WP:BEFORE search reveals nothing of consequence. --ARose Wolf 17:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Theleekycauldron (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally not at all notable. Nothing to note about his career as a soldier, and his work as a tram and bus driver also does not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this might even qualify under WP:A7 for speedy deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SNOW - there's hardly an assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in any way. —Kbabej (talk) 17:24, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Bath-Hadden

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

Biography of a person notable only as mayor of a small town, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not all automatically notable just because they exist, or because you can show a small handful of local coverage in the local media where coverage of local mayors is simply expected to exist -- the notability test for mayors hinges on the ability to write a substantial article about her political significance, delving into well-sourced detail about specific things she accomplished in the job, and not just on the ability to minimally verify that she existed. But the sources here are a single article in the local community weekly about her initial election as mayor in 2018, and a three-article blip of "mayor dies" in the local media within the past 24 hours. Making a small-town mayor notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia takes a lot more than this: more substance than this, more detail than this, more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Obits in Global News and the Star: [10], [11]. The Star one is republished from a Brock newspaper, but it's still in the Star. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than just the existence of a handful of obituaries in the local media, where obituaries of local mayors are simply expected to exist, to make a smalltown mayor notable. We would need a substantial amount of ongoing career coverage while she was alive, not just a brief WP:BIO1E blip of "mayor dies", to deem her notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're not local media, as I said. One is in the Toronto Star, and the other was published by Global News. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brock is a suburb of Toronto inside the Toronto Star's local coverage area, and the Global News hit is from Global's local news bureau in Toronto (i.e. CIII-DT), not from the network's national news division. So yes, they are local media — and even if they did count for more, they still wouldn't count for enough all by themselves, because they still fail the "ongoing career coverage that enables us to write a genuinely substantial article about her political significance" test. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to disagree about the precise scope of local media. I happen to think that an obit in Canada's largest newspaper and a national TV channel is not local coverage, and I see no evidence that the Global News obit is marked as being from a local affiliate specifically. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we did accept them as more than local, that still wouldn't change anything.

Firstly, just because the Toronto Star reprints an obituary from a local community weekly in Toronto's suburbs that's owned by the Toronto Star, is not in and of itself an automatic free pass over WP:GNG that exempts her from having to have had any substantive career coverage while she was alive. The Toronto Star has given one-shot coverage to a lot of people over the years without giving them all instant notability freebies that exempted them from having to actually pass a notability criterion just because their name had been in the Toronto Star once. The Toronto Star can, and does, still cover people in local interest contexts that don't make the person permanently notable just because their name has appeared in the Toronto Star: local restaurant reviews, human interest coverage of people with disabilities, high school athletes, suburban municipal councillors, and on and so forth. We don't just hand people an automatic inclusion freebie just because the article has the words Toronto Star in it: we look at the context of what the sources are covering the person for, not just the raw number of footnotes that the article happens to have.

Secondly, the My Kawartha hit is the same article as the Toronto Star hit. Please read WP:CITEKILL, in particular the section headlined "Reprints": if the same article gets reaggregated by another media outlet, they don't count as two separate data points toward establishing notability, but rather they combine as one data point. We only care about which media outlet originated the content, not which other media outlets reprinted it later on.

Thirdly, if you click on Brittany Rosen, the bylined author of the Global News piece, her staff profile clearly identifies her as Global Toronto's Durham Region reporter, and not as a national reporter for Global National.

And finally, the notability bar for a mayor requires ongoing career coverage of her work in the role, enabling us to write a substantial article about her political impact, and is not automatically passed just because of the existence of a couple of obituaries the day after her death. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayor who receives local coverage, as expected, within their community. Does not pass the basic notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:N minus all these SNG's that just cause more problems than help). An obituary is generally written by the family or someone close to the subject and not necessarily an independent assessment of their life or anything notable that they accomplished. Also, obituaries are generally not intellectually independent in that they are picked up by multiple media outlets but they are carbon copies of the same information. That, by definition, is not multiple sources used in determining notability on Wikipedia. Multiple is not a numerical measure but an intellectual measure. --ARose Wolf 17:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only local coverage. Doesn't meet the threshold of WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, she could only be included if she had done something else of note, such as winning a major award, being the first woman to be mayor of a town in Canada, etc. Deb (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not really notable. Sorry. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:56, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Technology Leaders Awards

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

This appears to be a paid article; it uses all-caps, has a list of sponsors, includes a "media coverage" section, and uses bare URL references that are all primary source. The few third-party references I've found are all from 2014 (example: Canadian technology awards celebrate ‘Made in Canada’). There may be more, if anyone is interested in salvaging this article, but most of what I've found is behind a paywall. Mind matrix 14:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per NOTINHERITED and GNG; reads like an advertisement or PR release, and no notability indicated from its mostly primary, self-published ref sources. GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:02, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balázs Banai

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

Can claim presumed notability through WP:NFOOTBALL because of 3 mins of professional football but a WP:BEFORE Hungarian search yielded no significant coverage and only trivial stuff like this. There is clear consensus in over 100 recent AfDs that failing WP:GNG is far more important in borderline NFOOTBALL cases like this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its only source is in Hungarian. It still has a Hungarian Wikipedia article though. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he has good coverage in Hungarian, then the article would still pass GNG. I could find nothing in my search, though, and have a good grasp of Hungarian having studied it for many years. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear consensus that failing GNG is more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails basic criteria for inclusion (WP:N minus vague SNG's). The result is that the subject is not notable for Wikipedia. --ARose Wolf 17:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a Hungarian, I say that he is not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:37, 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. A redirect to Patten River can be created if desired through normal editing processes, but there is consensus here that this article does not meet the notability requirements for geographic features. Hog Farm _Talk 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little Clive River

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

Likely an original research. References provided do not show a river named as such, neither the measures reported on the page. Natural Resources Canada official directory of geographical names shows no such name. Webfil (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources to support this river exists. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, this river is explicitly named as an "area covered" in this topographical map — but it's still a very minor river at best, and I can't find any sources that would render it notable. It's not our role to maintain an article about every river on earth that happens to appear on a map — our role is to keep articles about rivers that can be verified by written sources as having some credible claim of significance, not just every river that exists on earth. Creator is also a problematic editor who has a longstanding pattern of disregarding Wikipedia practice in a lot of ways — he genuinely seems to think we need or want an article about every single body of water in his geographic region of interest, and his article creation binges virtually always need somebody to come through and do a massive cleanup job afterward for bad structure and grammar and nonexistent categories — and while that's not a deletion rationale in and of itself, it does raise questions about his competence and his willingness to collaborate and listen. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - All rivers should have a Wikipedia article. Geographically, it is easy for anyone to find information on the Internet that supports the information posted on WP. This article informs readers well. The information contained is a good description of the watercourse. A lot of time is spent by editors designing good geographic articles on WP. Congratulations to those who apply themselves to writing well.Veillg1 (talk) 13:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veillg1: What particular parts of WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND are supported? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, all rivers should not have a Wikipedia article. There are literally millions of rivers in the world, and they aren't all of any significant public interest — the bar for having an article about a river is that there's coverage about the river to show that it's significant, not just that the river technically exists. (And that goes especially when you're trying to support it with sources that don't even properly verify its existence in the first place, such as directories that don't name it and maps that don't label it.) We're an encyclopedia, not a gazetteer, and there are rules to establish what's notable enough for an article and what isn't. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is easy for anyone to find information on the Internet that supports the information posted on WP As you've been repeatedly told by various editors, it's not for the reader to search the internet to verify what you have written. As per WP:BURDEN, it's for you to verify what you have written with references from reliable sources.--John B123 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Patten River~~ Delete- (change to delete after reading later comments about the Patten -Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)) I usually support the keeping of river articles, but this needs deleting/redirecting as per Bearcat. I agree that many of these articles are poorly written and sourced, which isn't a reason for deletion - but this one is barely on the map, let alone enough sources for a decent article.-Jokulhlaup (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, even Patten River isn't referenced to any sources that actually support its existence either, so I can't support a redirect to an article that's also potential deletion bait. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patten River I'd support keeping if there were even a single reliable source supporting the name, but the only reference provided does not contain any entry for a river with this name. older ≠ wiser 14:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Patten River, the only reference is a dead link (and was dead 4 years before the article was written[12]) The most recent archived copy (Jan 2013[13]) doesn't mention the Patten River. --John B123 (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Something is not inherently notable because it exists, otherwise who wants to write my biography here on Wikipedia? For a river to be notable it should have multiple intellectually independent sources describing it in a significant detail and providing reasons for why it is different than any of the other millions of rivers in the world. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fails WP:N --ARose Wolf 18:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until you bother to look for some relevant and alive sources, you can improve this article and make it reliable. For now it does not seem notable, sorry. UpcomingPurse^TalkToMe 04:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. No, not every fork and creek is notable. It has to be shown by at least two reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above arguments, particularly SIGCOV and MILL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:39, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Richter

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

Doesn't appear to pass GNG Pipsally (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pipsally (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is written in an unclear way. –Cupper52^Discuss! 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything unclear about the article, and, anyway, if it was written in an unclear way that would be a reason for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing here even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Comment The user RRfeatures - current adding a bunch of sources either self published or with passing mentions - appears to be another name for Reverie films, which is Richter's production company. Pipsally (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I've left a message for him/her. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth nothing this appears to be a self-created article by the subject to begin with. The new sources being added have no substantive references to Richter's personal notability, being largely listings or non-notable reviews.Pipsally (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, see below Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://web-old.archive.org/web/20161227200530/http://primeiroplanocom.com.br/site/index.php/academia-internacional-de-cinema-inaugura-curso-de-som-para-cinema-e-tv-no-rio-de-janeiro/		?	Mention is fairly brief	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1753573/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0		IMDb is not reliable		✘ No
https://lfs.org.uk/content/raindance-selects-center-gravity-and-when-song-dies			Just a name check	✘ No
https://oregonconfluence.com/2013/01/27/birds-of-neptune-a-film-by-steven-richter-is-currently-in-production-in-portland-or-to-be-released-in-fall-2013/		Blog		✘ No
https://www.hammertonail.com/film-festivals/slamdance-2015-preview/				✘ No
https://screenanarchy.com/2015/01/slamdance-2015-review-birds-of-neptune-of-malady-and-mysticism.html				✘ No
https://www.thewrap.com/slamdance-unveils-remaining-2015-lineup-exclusive/			As with the two above, this is a passing mention	✘ No
https://eatdrinkfilms.com/2015/02/05/slamdancin-in-park-city-ficks-top-five-picks-and-a-batkid-bonus/		Blog		✘ No
https://www.oregonlive.com/movies/2015/01/portland_independent_film_make.html				✘ No
https://silverscreenriot.com/birds-of-neptune-review/				✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4132010/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0				✘ No
http://revista.algomais.com/cultura/academia-internacional-de-cinema-oferece-bolsas-para-formacao-em-audiovisual			Doesn't appear to be mentioned	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaMoEPRY-Ps&ab_channel=AcademiaInternacionaldeCinema%28AIC%29				✘ No
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/ilustrad/fq0502200718.htm			Not mentioned	✘ No
http://roteironews.blogspot.com/2010/05/robert-mckee-em-sao-paulo-e-no-chile-em.html	?	Blog		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete: obvious (self?)-PROMO, non-NOTABILITY entity. GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:14, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghassan Al-Habahbeh

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

Looks to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; no evidence of any senior appearances for Al-Ahli. Will happily withdraw if evidence does come to light. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable teenaged footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. --Kemalcan (talk) 18:36, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy_Corporation

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

This is a very old page, about a corporation that was acquired and stopped existing 20 years ago, in 2001. The References and External Links are old and redirecting, or in some cases defunct. For example, ARSList ended in 2019, and Remedies for Remedy hasn't existed for quite a long time. The only recent changes to the page seem to be spam addition of https://www.softwareadvice.com/resources/remedy-software-guide/ by a suspected sockpuppet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sedgedorrit. Wattssw (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is a problem here? Being old and defunct certainly is not a valid deletion rationale. Pavlor (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per many reliable independent sources covering the topic from multiple points of view, absolutely passes WP:N, no questions asked.78.36.163.169 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no Remedy product anymore, no Remedy website, no Remedy groups. All external links on the page are defunct, the recent reference is spam from a sockpuppet. The page would need to be cleaned up and would then be considered a stub. Wikipedia isn't a historical log of every company that existed. This is a not-notable relic from the past. Wattssw (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no virtue in deleting the article. There is still a Remedy product - it is the Action Request System and it is currently sold by BMC. There are still active user groups and customers. I can try and clean it up (I haven't paid much attention to it in a while), but, since Wikipedia is not paper, I feel we are richer with this article than without it, if only slightly. -Armaced (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally I would suggest merging with the successor company, but the company history here indicates that would not be a clear way to handle this. WP is an encyclopedia , not a current business directory. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 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) 13:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rasoul Bahmani

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

Whilst the BLP PROD concern was resolved by addition of one source, I can find little else out there about Bahmani outside of coverage on Twitter. This is also an apparent autobiography as the article creator has the same name as Bahmani does on his Twitter page. This does not appear to meet WP:GNG nor any relevant SNG. He also fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject meets neither GNG nor our notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any coverage by reliable sources to meet GNG. The first hits are the tweeter account with the same username as the author, so I agree with nom that this seems like an autobiography. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with every reason by all contributors. I could not find a single reference (let alone reliable/signif ref) in a database search of Australian and NZ newspapers. I could not find a single reliable/signif ref via Google search. Agree that account that created page seems to be single purpose and editor name matches Twitter account of the page's subject. Fails GNG; fails SPA; fails NPOV. Cabrils (talk) 23:59, 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport Futsal Club

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

Has been tagged for multiple concerns for almost 7 years now. I could not find any strong coverage in a WP:BEFORE search myself. Scrolling through the seasons here, you can see that they never played at the top level and seem to disappear entirely after the 2015/16 season and their activity on Twitter also ceases at that point. Due to not meeting GNG and not having any suggestion of notability by default, I would suggest deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Was tagged for notability the same month as it was created (March 2014).–Cupper52^Discuss! 12:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Nigej (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that there is absolutely nothing to suggest this is a notable club. Dunarc (talk) 21:55, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mockelberg

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

Originally G14 CSD, but was disputed. This page does not meet the criteria for a DAB or a set index article. Servers no navigation function, only entries are nn fictional characters w/o articles. // Timothy :: talk 11:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not disambiguating anything (though I assume you meant G14?). --IWI (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This is a surname article, should keep it, because this page records the surname Mockelberg's information, the information is very important, if there is something wrong with this page, please modify it, thank you. --Lord Djibril (talk) 1:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete to be a surname article, we would need actual reliable sources that actually discuss the surname. These are lacking. In fact, since both of the alleged uses involve fictional characters, I am less than convinced this is a real surname at all. There are very few fictional surnames worth having articles on, and to justify such as article they need a fictional back story, not just being dreamed into existence for one character. Now, this may be a real surname had by real people, but no evidence of that has been presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No we do not. Per WP:Name pages, all that is needed for a valid {{surname}} page (an SIA) is links to two articles in enwiki about people with the same surname. There is no guideline which says they cannot be fictional. Narky Blert (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This article is reliable already, although the page is records about some fictional characters, so shouldn't have the double-standard to judge the article. Maybe you think that the surname displayed on this page is unnecessary or too unpopular, but this surname is still used by some people and should not be deleted casually. I guess the reason why the author created this page is that everyone can recognize this surname. This article without any malicious intent. I agree and admire the author’s approach. In addition, this page has been updated, and the evidence for Mockelberg’s surname has been added, so it proves that this surname is a real surname. You can check it if you don’t believe it. In last, I urge everyone to help keep this page, thank you. --Everstonerelm (talk) 5:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Delete: I came here expecting to defend a surname article ... but neither of the persons listed is notable enough for a mention in the articles linked, and the reference is to a general genealogy site with no information on this name, so... delete. PamD 12:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nelleis is a similar page - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelleis. PamD 12:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groht. PamD 12:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This article should be keep and defend, you say the reference was no information about the surname, just look carefully, you can find the surname's information. This website records the information of Mockelberg’s surname and the information of other people who have this surname, which fully proves that this surname exists in this world. Other websites also record the information of this surname. These evidences clearly exist. Carefully look up the information of this surname and you will understand what I said. Well, if I am not clear enough, please take a good look at this paragraph: The immigration list on the website clearly lists the names and personal data of immigrants with this surname, these are all evidence. In my opinion, this page does not have too many problems, so please do not make unnecessary attacks on this page. I admire the author’s efforts. Please keep this page, protect the information on this page, and save the page, thank you. --Stronehaster (Stronehaster) 2:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Checkuser note: Lord Djibril, Everstonerelm, and Stronehaster are confirmed sockpuppets of each other. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord Djibril. Mz7 (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hmm, interesting. There are three "Keep" votes. The editor who created the article in question "Lord Djibril". Then "Everstonerelm", who has not edited since November 2019 but whose few edits include edits to Panzer, Jibril (disambiguation) and Djibril, and "Sronehaster" who has made just one previous edit, in 2018, to Panzer, which happens to have also been the second page edited by "Lord Djibril". Could just be a bunch of mates interested in tanks and in fictional surnames. PamD 15:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And "Werstone" has just !voted "Keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groht and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nelleis, having just one previous edit to ... guess what ... Panzer. Time for SPI I think. PamD 15:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is something refreshing, almost wholesome in the transparent innocence displayed in the above socking. // Timothy :: talk 18:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure what sort of article this is supposed to be, but it doesn't really matter. If this is a DAB, it's G14 eligible. If it's a set index article, it fails WP:SIA. And if it's a standard article, it fails the GNG. In any event, it fails the relevant guideline and ought to be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find any sources giving any actual info about this surname; it probably does exist as a variation of some other surname somewhere in the world but, unless it is actually documented in a reliable source somewhere, it shouldn't be kept. Alternatively, this page could be kept if it has a definite navigational purpose but it fails on that basis too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither target mentions the name. I found non-WP:RS evidence for the name's existence in myheritage.com (a different link from the one in the article). None of the bearers looks in any way notable, and dewiki nowhere mentions the name. Narky Blert (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL. Not every name used in a fictional universe is notable. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dowell Baum

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

This article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. It was created in November 2007. Less than a year later it was tagged for one source, and eight years after that it was tagged for notability. Also it’s lead section does not include any sources. Looking closer, I can only see that he had one major role during his acting career and two roles during his whole career.He does have an IMDb page, but there are cases like this that have happened before. –Cupper52^Discuss! 10:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss!

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss!

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52^Discuss!

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR, and also very little coverage to be found online. --IWI (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either an actress nor as a minister. Yes, she is probably one of a super small handful of members of the United Church of Christ born after 1975, it is one of the dying seven sisters of "Mainline" Protestantism in the United States, but that alone is not an actual sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna Gupta

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

I have a considerable skepticism about people in ordinary occupations who have professional glamorous photographs.This at least is honest: its the credited work of a professional photographer, not a transparent pretense at "self"

But the claimed notable work is developing a non-notable product, and then writing a non notable book. The only way this could have generate news stories is if they were PR stories; nobody would have cared otherwise, and neither should we.I don't trust single one of them for being objective and independent. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Does have quite a lot of good citations, but I don’t think it passes WP:NBIO. –Cupper52^Discuss! 10:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep Most sources are about other things that mention her. The CNN Money and Vogue India links seem to be the best. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be notable, if weakly. (For what it's worth, I've heard of the app, and it has its own article with decent sourcing.) The sources don't appear to be PR by the standards of the field (in which everything is PR, but we've ruled that some count as 'reliable' for Wikipedia purposes). At least three of them (the two Oaktree mentioned and the Sunday Times piece) strike me as fairly clear GNG passes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable, albeit needs more reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by TOKYO2021 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://money.cnn.com/interactive/technology/15-questions-with-prerna-gupta/index.html finds her notable enough to interview. Two other reliable sources publish long articles she wrote about herself https://www.vogue.com/article/prerna-gupta-songify-got-rid-of-possessions-lived-as-nomad https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/jobs/11pre.html so all these reliable sources consider her a notable person. Dream Focus 20:27, 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 no consensus. Essentially, there is no strong agreement on whether or not simply being a Grade II listed building is enough to be important for a global encyclopedia, and whether or not there is sufficient coverage of sources such that the article can be improved. The "keep" side suggest the coverage is sufficient, and the article is in reasonable shape, while the "delete" side have suggested it isn't, and it's not possible to improve the article to an extent it could be maintained by anybody. The discussion has also deteriorated into personal attacks from both sides. I have no objection to the RfC as proposed by Black Kite. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dog & Bull

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

Fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG, purely WP:MILL, no SIGCOV in multiple RS Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be harassment contrary to WP:HOUND. This arises because the nominator and I have had an unrelated dispute and now he is going after my creations as a form of retaliation. They were specifically warned about this by @Lar:.

As for the topic, this was created in response to a request here. The place in question has a history going back to the 12th century and is listed for legal protection by Historic England. Naturally there is plenty of coverage in the many books about London pubs such as the Good Beer Guide and London Heritage Pubs.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:HOUNDing at all. I PRODed numerous pages, which you dePROded and so I and other have put those pages up for AFD all as I explained on your Talk Page: [14]. You can't just create pages about your local pub ignoring GNG. In 2010 there were 374,000 listed buildings of which 92% were Grade II, so about 344,000, so it's not at all notable. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been to Croydon and my local is actually The Drayton Court. As Mztourist is mainly interested in the Vietnam War, note that Ho Chi Minh worked there. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist made two PRODs just two minutes apart: [15], [16]. The only connection between these articles is that I created them both. Neither topic falls within Mztourist's usual interests. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew I have been watching your Talk Page since I posted there, that is how I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Munro. That led me to look at your Articles Created where I saw that you have a 7% deletion rate which indicates to me that your understanding of WP:GNG is less than perfect. Looking through your articles I saw several that appear dubious, I PROded 2, you dePRODed both and I have so far AFDed one, this one, your most recent article. Take it to ANI if you have a problem. Mztourist (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to delete Sandy Munro. The other article prodded by Mztourist for "uncontroversial deletion" was Eudo Mason but notice that we don't have an AfD for that as promised: "I will put any page that you dePROD up for deletion." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Sandy Munro closed as no consensus, congratulations your 7% deletion rate remains intact for now, well done you. Mztourist (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per noms rationale. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 11:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy has a bone to pick too. They can lately be found on Mztourist's talk page, barking at "project ARSehole". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as tasty as your deprods, Andy. (I wasn't going to mention Project Arsehole) -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 11:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at ARS and it seems to just be organized WP:CANVASSING. Mztourist (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion got several !votes as a result of it being featured offsite at Wikipediocracy. This seems to explain the anti-British quote and hostile !votes on 27 Jan. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Share the link, I can't see it there. Mztourist (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, historic building, covered in reliable sources both for its architecture and its role as a pub. The other points should be at ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide these RS, they're not there at the moment. Mztourist (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have made no argument as to why the sources in the article are not reliable; and your hectoring is unacceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The local newspaper, the local council, a bar guide, a Heritage listing and then various passing references. Do you really think that amounts to SIGCOV in multiple RS that this is a "notable historic building... both for its architecture and its role as a pub"? It doesn't meet WP:NBUILDING which requires: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability Mztourist (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said: "You have made no argument as to why the sources in the article are not reliable" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Written above. Mztourist (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NBUILDING Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Grade 2 listing meets this, as this is a National listing not local.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking at the wrong part, the relevant part reads: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be using the wrong part? The bit you quoted and the bit I quoted both come from the same WP:NBUILDING. Listed status in the UK are designated as per: In the UK, the process of protecting the built historic environment (i.e. getting a heritage asset legally protected) is called 'designation'. To complicate things, several different terms are used because the processes use separate legislation: buildings are 'listed'; ancient monuments are 'scheduled', wrecks are 'protected', and battlefields, gardens and parks are 'registered'. A heritage asset is a part of the historic environment that is valued because of its historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest." Therefore it is officially assigned the status of national heritage by the UK government and so therefore notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you quoted applies to artificial geographical features, what I quoted specifically applies to buildings. As I said above, as at 2010 there were approximately 344,000 Grade II buildings in the UK, so its not at all notable. This pub is not a National Trust or English Heritage site, which would be required to fall under Cultural Heritage. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per the listing for Geographical feature "Conversely, human settlements or other engineered forms are considered types of artificial geographical features." A Building is a human settlement. As per the other quote I gave, which is also on Wikipedia, this has been designated a Historical asset. If a site is owned by National Trust or English Heritage is because they have bought, or been given (mainly due to death taxes) a site that has been identified by the government as a historical asset. The listed status is more important. Remember this is the building, not the pub that is important and has the listing. Because there is 344,000 odd Grade 2 buildings doesn't mean they are not notable, they have been identified as historical assets by the state, which means they are national heritage. We don't say footballers are not notable because there is a few million who have played pro football? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant criteria are those for buildings not geographical features. Footballers is a red herring and they don't all have pages, nor do all 344,000+ Grade II listed buildings. SIGCOV in multiple RS is the key here and this doesn't have it, its just another old English pub. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nationally listed in the UK, therefore passes WP:NBUILDING. We have had this discussion at AfD many times, and it always ends up as a "keep". Edwardx (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, Grade II listing is not automatic notability! There are half a million listed buildings in the UK, and there is no consensus whatsoever that all of them are immune from deletion without having to show significant coverage. The claim above this is false and many pages of Grade II buildings have been deleted. In this case however, there may be adequate significant coverage attesting to the history and recognition of the pub. Reywas92^Talk 00:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is your opinion, nothing more. Grade II building clearly do meet the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT as written. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Everything British is notable by virtue of being British." doesn't apply here. Neutral. While Grade II listing is nice, it is barely sufficient to grant notability. The pub is however mentioned in several sources too, so deletion is a bit of a stretch here.--Darwinek (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be any policy (or even a guideline) that suggests Grade II listing is any sort of pass to notability (NBUILDING requires "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources"). Given that, there's nothing here. The Historic England entry is a listing. The Layers of London entry is a listing. The CAMRA entry is a listing. The other two sources that are actually about the pub are local newspapers. My local pub is also Grade II listed - parts of it date from the 1570s - and I could easily find twice as many sources about that - and probably more in-depth ones - as are on display here. But I'm not going to, because that pub isn't notable either. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's listed then it clearly is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it isn't. If It was Grade II* then possibly, but there are over 350,000 Grade II buildings in the UK and the vast majority are completely unremarkable. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear GNG failure with almost zero SIGCOV. Any editing disputes are completely irrelevant to whether the subject is notable. SK2242 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is incredibly thin doesnt pass the "in depth coverage criterion of NBUILDING. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The official Historic England listing is sufficient for notability in this case. Redoryxx (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a listed building per WP:GEOFEAT. Yes, "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage" does apply to buildings. What else do you think that paragraph is referring to exactly? The paragraphs underneath simply provide further guidance on features that are not "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What else do you think that paragraph is referring to exactly? things like Tumulus and Anglo-Saxon burial mounds for example - but NOT buildings. Simples. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 14:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And would like to show us consensus for that minority opinion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is your basis for saying that is a minority opinion? GEOFEAT has 3 bullets, the 2nd bullet relates to buildings, but you are trying to say that all buildings actually fit under the 1st bullet which is not supported. Mztourist (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, this is a pretty good illustration. Not exactly a full consensus, but far more of a consensus that Grade II buildings are notable than that they're not. You can also see that thinking (including mine, incidentally) has changed over time. If you read the AfDs you'll see that many people consider that point 1 of WP:GEOFEAT does apply to buildings. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone would interpret it any other way. Buildings clearly are "artificial geographical features". It seems to me like just a further attempt to claim that more and more topics are not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Another one of your personal lists which you use to claim consensus... As is evident Grade II* are generally notable, while Grade II buildings are notable if they have SIGCOV in multiple RS, but just being Grade II is not an automatic pass on notability. No, I do not agree that "many people consider that point 1 of WP:GEOFEAT does apply to buildings" and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derwent House clearly shows this, as do the discussions here. Mztourist (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Another one of your personal lists which you use to claim consensus... Snidely questioning my integrity again are we? I see little consensus here that your opinion is in the majority. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Always amusing seeing you take apparent offense at behaviour that you routinely practice with those who disagree with you. Mztourist (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject falls under second point of GEOFEAT "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" SK2242 (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As already stated, no, it falls under the first point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Necrothesp: The Dog & Bull is a building, and so point 2 applies. SK2242 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, but it is also an artificial geographical feature, so point 1 applies. Point 2 is merely saying that if a building does not meet the criteria of point 1 then it can still be notable. Blatantly obvious to me (and many other editors). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - You read a lot into GEOFEAT that blatantly isn't there. Nowhere does it say that if point 1 doesn't apply to a building then point 2 applies.Mztourist (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has a grade II listing. [17] Listed_building#Grade_II Grade II: buildings that are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them. I believe they are more qualified to determine a buildings notability than some random Wikipedia editor. Dream Focus 15:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV. Grade II listing is the lowest level in system and covers more than 300,000 buildings. It shouldn't automatically confer notability. --RaiderAspect (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the fact that it's authoritatively covered by Nikolaus Pevsner (county architectural surveys of England) and that it has a Grade II listing shows that the pub is notable as a building. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Edwardx, Dream & Chiswick Chap, plus per the extensive coverage in reliable sources.

Dog & Bull joke

This email arrived yesterday from one of the crew I was with on my last visit to this pub back in 2008, so Im taking that as a sign one of y’all might find it LOLish.

~Went for a walk with my new girlfriend and we saw dogs mating. She said: “How does the male know when the female is ready for sex?” I replied: “He can smell she is ready . That’s how nature works.”

We then walked past a sheep field and the ram was mating the ewe. Again my girlfriend asked: “How does the ram knew when the ewe is ready for sex?” I replied: “It’s nature. He can smell she is ready.”

We then went past a cow-field and the bull was mating with the cow. My girlfriend said: “This is odd. They are really going at it. Surely the bull can’t smell when she is ready?” I said: “Oh, yes; it’s nature . All animals can smell when the female is ready for sex.”

Anyway, after the walk, I dropped her home and kissed her goodbye. She said: “Take care and get yourself checked out for Covid-19.” Surprised, “Why do you say that?” I asked her.

She replied: “You seem to have lost your sense of smell.”~

FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this ends up being kept I suspect an RfC on Grade II listing is required, because at the moment many people appear to believe that it confirms some sort of notability on what in most cases are 350,000 completely unremarkable buildings. Like this one. Black Kite (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The unremarkable buildings are the ones that don't get listed and there are millions more of those. In any case, the numbers are unimportant because it is our clear policy that, as Wikipedia is not paper, we can accommodate any number of articles. As a result, Wikipedia now has 6 million articles and counting. We should expect many more as there are millions of species, populated places, politicians, pro sportspeople, &c. Listed buildings are comparatively straightforward to document because the listing gives the basic architectural features and history which can then be rounded out with a photograph, map, coordinates and the like. This then works well with our mobile app which specifically tells readers about notable buildings in their locality. And that works well with projects like Wiki Loves Monuments. Why would we want to damage and disrupt this natural and productive activity? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but not for non-notable pubs, like this one. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 10:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Most of the keep !votes hinge on whether or not Grade II listed buildings meet the auto-notability requirements as per WP:GEOFEAT, however, in other discussions on other topics, any classification with so many recipients would fail that test (e.g. Silver Star recipients - approximately 150k). WP:NBUILDING, while saying that buildings "may" be notable due to their historic record, clearly states that these must be backed up "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability", which is clearly not the case here. I think Black Kite's suggestion regarding an RFC on grade II buildings is warranted.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and "OPPOSE OPENING AN RFC ABOUT GRADE II". It has long been my understanding that, as a rule of thumb, Grade II* and higher (not Grade II which is lower) listed buildings in the U.K. are expected to be Wikipedia-notable, based on the numbers of places of each type and most importantly based on the typical availability of reliable source info from, what, "British Heritage" or whatever is the typical source. (To Americans, this is roughly equivalent to saying most of 95,000 or so individually-NRHP-listed places are likely to merit articles, because the NRHP registration documents will exist and usually will have lots to say, while places which are merely among 1 or 2 million contributing buildings in NRHP-listed historic districts won't necessarily have any substantial info about them available in NRHP documents.) These are just rules of thumb, one has to leave discretion to editors, about whether it is worth creating an article. But note, a good photo or two conveys a whole lot, is worth ~1,000 words of factual text. This place is apparently Grade II, but there are pic(s) and the editors have cobbled together a bunch of text-info sources, some about sort of trivial-sounding things, which nonetheless add sufficiently to the baseline "Grade II"-ness of the place. There cannot be a hard and fast rule that all places Grade II and lower are not notable (easily contradicted by many examples obviously meeting wp:GNG), nor that all places Grade II* plus must have articles. It is up to editors' discretion to choose where to develop coverage; editors might choose to cover a bunch of historic sites including high-designation ones in one list-article for a local area, and there may be no need to split out separate articles. I can't see what an RFC would usefully accomplish, and whatever "rule" it could come up with would not apply here, anyhow. --Doncram (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently a significant community asset. We have barely started documenting the deep architectural and social heritage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia IMO. No Swan So Fine (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grade IIs are deemed notable per GEOFEAT as cultural heritage. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Wave Drum and Bugle Corps

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

Article is unsourced to anything except dci.org, which is not WP:RS. A standard WP:BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find RS coverage that is WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails notability. Chetsford (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Bolli

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

City manager (city also has a mayor) of Covington, Washington, population 21k. Does not have major coverage, does not pass NPOL. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 07:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does NPOL mean? It does have a very local coverage though. It has been in the local newspapers multiple times. I am pretty sure there is a local SEO for it. and I am just trying to increase the volume of the articles. Qian Nivan (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the link WP:NPOL; it is the inclusion criteria for politicians for Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being city manager of a small city in the 17K range is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and referencing the article entirely to the city's own self-published website about itself is not how you source a person over WP:GNG. To be notable for this, he would have to be getting nationalizing media coverage far, far beyond just his own local media — every city manager in every city is always "referenceable" to the city's own website and/or a few shots of local journalism in the local media, but that does not make every city manager notable. As always, the fact that a person's existence is verifiable in primary sources is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article — to be includable here, a person has to be able to show properly sourced evidence of their significance, not just proof that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is the city manager of a city with roughly 20,000 that is within the Seattle metro area, in fact probably one of the smaller overall cities in the county. This is not a regionally significant city in any way. His previously management in Ephraim, Utah was at least in a city that is one of the two major point of population in the county, and considering it is the location of Snow College, it may be the most populous point in that county, although it is overshadowed by Manti, Utah due to Manti being where the temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is, one of only 5 temples that have operated over 100 years (3 others in Utah and 1 in Hawai'i), and so Manti is historically the most important city in Utah between Provo and at least Cedar City. Still, Ephraim does not have the influence that would make its city manager a notable person by default and the sourcing is just not here. The city where I grew up Sterling Heights, Michigan, which has roughly 100,000 people lacks an article on any city manager as far as I can tell, although Steve Duchane I suspect would actually pass notability, but it would take a lot to find the coverage. He was the city manager for well over a decade. He was first removed in the context of the Detroit News Plant strike and basically running on a plank to reinstate him caused a turnover in the city council. That was in 1994 I believe. Than about 2006 Mr. Duchane was removed when during various disputes and lawsuits it was revealed he had lied on his resume and did not have the masters degree he claimed. I know if I dub out old issues of the Macomb Daily I could fully document this, as we could create a much fuller article on James Fouts the mayor of Warren, Michigan who really needs a better article (he was my high school government teacher in 1998-1999 when he was also a member of (and I believe at that time president of) the Warren city council. Our current article says way to little about his roughly 30 years on the Warren City Council. A big issue will be if Macomb Daily and even Detroit News coverage of Duchane is just local coverage, or if we can find something of higher quality. I have to admit that I think he is a crook and does not deserve any recotnition at all. If we do have an article on him it should reveal his lieing on his resume, but I just do not feel like spending the time to write such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete City managers or city administrators, or even most staff of a municipality of any size would not pass WP:NPOL and would need to meet WP:GNG. Assorted local press would not get an individual over that bar. --Enos733 (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am not trying to argue on this article. But on my next article does it matter if a person has run for office. Qian Nivan (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I was hoping to put more detail on all the cities around Seattle. It just happened to be that I live in Covington, WA. Qian Nivan (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Running for office does absolutely nothing to establish notability. A person has to have held a notable political office that would pass WP:NPOL, and gets no bonus points just for running as a candidate per se. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't pass GNG, just local coverage. Fails NPOL as well as POLOUTCOMES. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not important enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. The city in which he "leads" is not large enough to be automatically notable, there's no secondary sources in the article, and there are exactly zero newspaper articles about this guy. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summers, California

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

The name does show up on the topos, early on, near a building which is likely still part of the ranch that occupies the site. The font on the map is Gothic, not Roman, which may indicate why the GNIS cite is to a DMA map rather than to the topos: someone in the first GNIS sweep may have figured out that this was the Summers place and not a settlement. At any rate, searching produced exactly nothing, so not notable. Mangoe (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All indications are that this is a ranch, not a community. As an aside, the 1943 Packwood topo calls this place "Sumners". WP:GEOLAND is not met. Hog Farm _Talk 15:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In JSTOR, I searched for ("Summers California" and "Kern") and ("Summers, California" and "Kern") and recieved the response" "no results found". I also searched for "Summers California" and "Summers, California" separately on JSTOR and recieved just more than a couple of dozen hits. None of these had anything to with an alleged settlement by that name. Searches using ("Summers California" and "Kern") and ("Summers, California" and "Kern") yielded more hits on Goggle Scholar. However, there was nothing promising in regards to there being a settlement by that name in Kerns County or anything else of any significance. As expected, searching without "Kern" on Google Scholar proved useless in determing anything. If someone wants to keep this stub, the burden of proof should be on them to provide positive evidence of both the existence and significance of this entity as a populated place. As it stands, I agree with Mangoe and Hog Farm. Paul H. (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Ranches and ghost towns are not automatically notable; they need sources. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 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 14:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prettyman, Missouri

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

The state historical society source does not call this place a town, rather it says A switch on the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad in the western part of Grand River Township; established sometime after 1870 and named for T.F. Prettyman (1853- ), who owned the land on which it was built Topos show an isolated railroad point. Newspapers.com is for last names and a Prettyman Road, nothing on Google book or Google to disprove the statement that this was a railroad ~~spur~~ switch, not a community. WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG are not met. Hog Farm _Talk 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 03:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete given that there's no source that actually says that there was something notable here. The topos and aerials show nothing, and I cannot even verify that there was a switch here, much less that it was a notable rail location. Mangoe (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found neither evidence of notabillity for Prettyman, Missouri, nor anything indicating it even exists as a settlement / populated place. The name is distinctive enough where something should show up if it actually exists. Example of representative searches are:

I. Google Scholar - some searches

A. "Your search - "Prettyman, Missouri" - did not match any articles."

B. "Your search - "Prettyman Missouri" - did not match any articles."

C. "Prettyman" and "Missouri" - found that the surname Prettyman is found among Univeristy of Missouri alumni and Missouri judges.

II. JSTOR - "No results found"

III. GEOREF - "No results were found"

IV. Google Search - some searches

A. "Prettyman Missouri" and ("Prettyman" and "Missouri")- both searches yielded seemingly infinite number of hits for clickbait recycled from the "Prettyman, Missouri" Wikipedia page.

B. "Prettyman" and "Missouri" and "cultural resources" - archaeologist named Prettyman, who worked in Missouri.

C. "Prettyman" and "Missouri" and "archaeological" - archaeologist named Prettyman, who worked in Missouri. Paul H. (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL - according to reference # 2, it is "A switch on the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad ...." In my humble opinion, lots of places are not notable. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forty Fest

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

No significant coverage per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of coverage by reliable, independent sources, no evidence of notability. --Ashley yoursmile! 07:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 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. withdrawn Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 3)

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

Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraphs repeat info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. There are no references. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages. Nothing in this article couldn't be adequately copied to or summarized in the episodes list article. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator because I made a mistake when I nominated these for deletion and should have done a merge discussion instead. Sorry for creating four of these. I have added a discussion to the talk page of the main list article to further this discussion instead. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that 1 merge proposal and 4 separate AFDs regarding the same issue is too much. The sourcing issues can be easily fixed by searching for reliable sources and using the actual episodes as sources. Merging them with List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes would create a rather lengthy list. See also the merger proposal and related AFDs for season 4, season 5 and season 6. Recommend carrying this discussion out via the merger proposal. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:38, 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. withdrawn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 4)

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

Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraphs repeat info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. The only references are to Amazon.com DVD pages. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages. Nothing in this article couldn't be adequately copied to or summarized in the episodes list article. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator because I made a mistake when I nominated these for deletion and should have done a merge discussion instead. Sorry for creating four of these. I have added a discussion to the talk page of the main list article to further this discussion instead. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that 1 merge proposal and 4 separate AFDs regarding the same issue is too much. The sourcing issues can be easily fixed by searching for reliable sources and using the actual episodes as sources. Merging them with List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes would create a rather lengthy list. See also the merger proposal and related AFDs for season 3, season 5 and season 6. Recommend carrying this discussion out via the merger proposal. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:38, 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. Withdrawn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 5)

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

Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraphs repeat info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. The only reference is to an Amazon.com DVD page. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages. Nothing in this article couldn't be adequately copied to or summarized in the episodes list article. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator because I made a mistake when I nominated these for deletion and should have done a merge discussion instead. Sorry for creating four of these. I have added a discussion to the talk page of the main list article to further this discussion instead. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that 1 merge proposal and 4 separate AFDs regarding the same issue is too much. The sourcing issues can be easily fixed by searching for reliable sources and using the actual episodes as sources. Merging them with List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes would create a rather lengthy list. See also the merger proposal and related AFDs for season 3, season 4, and season 6. Recommend carrying this discussion out via the merger proposal. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:39, 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. Withdrawn. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (season 6)

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

Episode descriptions could easily be integrated into the main episode list article. Lead paragraphs repeat info found on the main series' article and the main episode list. There are no references. There isn't enough substance here to warrant this season getting its own article. Everything about it could be placed on other relevant pages. Nothing in this article couldn't be adequately copied to or summarized in the episodes list article. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator because I made a mistake when I nominated these for deletion and should have done a merge discussion instead. Sorry for creating four of these. I have added a discussion to the talk page of the main list article to further this discussion instead. Thank you. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is articles for deletion and not articles for merge. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an articles for merge page I should post this to? I thought AfD was the place to find consensus on this type of thing without nuance, but I may be wrong. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For merging, there is instructions at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will redirect my discussion there. — Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 02:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the grounds that 1 merge proposal and 4 separate AFDs regarding the same issue is too much. The sourcing issues can be easily fixed by searching for reliable sources and using the actual episodes as sources. Merging them with List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes would create a rather lengthy list. See also the merger proposal and related AFDs for season 3, season 4 and season 5. Recommend carrying this discussion out via the merger propsal. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These should all be withdrawn given the acknowledgement of the merge proposal and should have been bundled in one AFD properly per WP:BUNDLE instead of being separate AFDs. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:36, 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Hutchins

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NATHLETE. Honours won are local, and as a high school track and field athlete it sounds like this is WP:TOOSOON. FalconK (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is precipitious. Despite very limited competition due to the coronavirus, Hutchins ran the fastest track time in the world last year in the Under-18 bracket. The next four women on the list, all Japanese, ran in stiff competition which tends to produce faster time. All were a year or more older than Hutchins. Number 6 on the list, was a fraction under 40 seconds slower than her. https://www.worldathletics.org/records/toplists/middle-long/5000-metres/outdoor/women/u18/2020 Her cross country time for 5K was almost ten seconds better than the previous North American high school runners' best, one of many over 1,600 meters held by Katelyn Tuohy, whose 5K track record she also lowered. She's clearly in a class of her own. Activist (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably too soon to be notable, give her a year or two. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per others, this is too soon. Perhaps later. Springee (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable athlete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I went to the AFD, it was clear that there wasn't an adequate understanding of the level of this athlete's performances. In a period of a few weeks, she demolished the record of 5K Cross country, and her 5K track record time was extraordinary for numerous reasons. They were set essentially in the absence of competition, remarkable in itself. These sorts of records have historically been recorded in open competition with adult champion racers, sometimes with pacers, to pull the record seekers through the early laps. Before creating the article, I checked the World U-20 championship results for 2016 and 2018 (2020 was canceled) and she would have been a medal contender (top three) in both years with the time she ran, though the top finishers were as much as 3 1/2 years older than she. No Americans in the races were remotely competitive. Though the two national championship high school races were not held due to the coronavirus, she clearly would have outclassed the field. This young woman is the Wilt Chamberlain, LeBron James or Kobe Bryant of high school distance runners. I've created and contributed to articles about distance runners whose performances dated back to the 1930s. Here's the Wikipedia list of NCAA 5K outdoors collegiate national championship times from 1982 through 2017. These featured African and European standouts as well, as much as seven or eight years older than she. Her time would have won 30 of those 35 races, (one just 0.37 seconds faster). It would have won recent Olympics! Because she's an exceptional scholar and volunteer, she is said to train minimally, less than 40 miles a week, NCAA Division I Outdoor Track and Field Championships – Women's 5,000 meter run. Activist (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competing at a notable level of the sport (ranked in top 100 last year) and passes general notability with multiple instances of specific, independent coverage of the athlete from Track and Field News and Runner's World (i.e. the biggest global outlets for the sport). For comparison, she ranked above Kim Conley in the 5000 m last year, who was the United States' representative in that event at the 2016 Olympics. This is not a case of too soon, Hutchins is already meeting the definition of world class athlete and garnering the requisite third party coverage that one would expect from a 16-year-old achieving that feat. SFB 23:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, global top 100 is nowhere near good enough to constitute "a notable level of the sport" per WP:SPORTCRIT. Top 25, maybe. If Activist knew track and field well, s/he would have known that Olympic races (and hence the winning times) are often not full-paced. I think Wikipedia:Countering systemic bias doesn't apply here either. Geschichte (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. USATF website is reliable. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Megtetg34 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Setting a United States national junior record and North American continental record as a youth athlete is a rare and notable achievement on its own. USA is not a small time player, there are a lot of notable athletes who were as much as three and a half years older who she bested. Coverage by the major media players of the sport, FloTrack, Milesplit, Runners World, Track and Field News means WP:SIGCOV. World Athletics took note and posted her profile. As Geschichte downplayed the world top 100, he should have noticed that list is so lopsided, only some 14 countries are represented in that 100. Lets also note her time would have placed 15th in the 2016 Olympic final. While making it through the tough American talent pool would be quite a feat, particularly for a youth level athlete, she currently would be on that track in the U.S. Olympic Trials. WP:TOOSOON is definitely not applicable. Trackinfo (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Striking duplicate !vote. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)) I should note that two of the "deletes" are by a long-time Wikistalker of mine who has shown virtually no interest in anything but post-1932 American Politics (AP2) articles for fourteen years on Wikipedia, and motor vehicles specifications articles, and by a new editor with no User or Talk page, who has been editing for three days, has nominated numerous articles for deletion and little else and has been cautioned by a veteran editor for such editing. I also added a Sports Illustrated article that singled Hutchins out for her soccer playing and a first and a second place in 3K age-group races when she was 11 years old, when she was running well under six minutes/mile! Activist (talk) 22:16, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese White

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

Not sure how we are currently dealing with rabbit breeds, but based on the usual dog breed handling, not being recognized by any breeders association presumably indicates that we should not have an article about it? (I would also be obliged if someone could point me to a record of the current consensus) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have left you a message on your talk page. DestinationFearFan (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pages Altex rabbit, Armenian Marder, Bauscat rabbit, Blanc de Popielno, and more are not recognized by the ARBA or the BRC, and they are still pages. This article adds another rabbit breed, and in my opinion, should be kept. DestinationFearFan (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to meet WP:GNG. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:45, 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. Daniel (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Johnson (theatre-maker/musician)

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

References on this page are passing mentions, not significant coverage, so I don't think the article meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability since 2013. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is nowhere near enough to show notability. Based on the user name and very focused actions of the article creator, I have to wonder if this article was started as an autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 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 deleted per G12. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W'at Abowt Us

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; could not find any independent or reliable coverage at all in a WP:BEFORE search. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copy of https://www.cinemaclock.com/movies/w-at-abowt-us-2019. ... discospinster _talk 00:20, 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.