Knowledge (XXG)

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

The result was Redirect to Mambo Graphics. Plainly there is no consensus to keep here, leaving the only matter to be considered as whether to delete or redirect. The only keep !vote is based on the view that interviews are sufficient to sustain notability, a view that was decisively countered. Deus et lex's point about WP:ATD meaning this is a preferred route is conclusive, and the delete voters were not opposed to this either. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

No evidence of any notability. The company he created possibly scrapes by the notability guidelines but this BLP is woefully inadequately supported by sources which seem to be an interview , an article about the company selling out and a commentary on seling the business. Searches reveal nothing. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Velella  23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Velella  23:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mambo Graphics. An obvious alternative to deletion that must be considered before deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep An interview in RS/IS is SIGCOV for notability in my book.— Ad Meliora ∕_Contribs 17:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment any interview is rarely satisfactory for establishing notability as it is in the subject's own words. I haven't a clue what "RS/IS" is but it doesn't seem to be one of the refs quoted and my searches fail to find anything of that name.  Velella  19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, if an WP:RS/WP:IS features an interview of a subject, that is WP:SIGCOV for establishing notability. Interviews are primary with respect to establishing specific facts. But SIGCOV is easily established with interviews. — Ad Meliora ∕_Contribs 14:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect as suggested to Mambo Graphics. Whenever I see a two-sentence BLP and coverage so shallow that a fully-flesh biography is not possible, its time to delete or redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Out of three sources, two are interviews which are primary and do not count towards establishing notability. I am not opposed to redirect either.Faizal batliwala (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Interviews in RS/IS do count as SIGCOV for establishing notability. They just are not good sources of factual information. (If an RS/IS considered someone important enough to interview them, that's not trivial.) — Ad Meliora ∕_Contribs 14:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. The attempts to establish notability for "well known businessmen" more often than not come with the distinct aroma of professional -if we may generously exaggerate a bit- assistance. This one is rather lame. A Redirect would not be out of place, though. -The Gnome (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  JGHowes  18:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Malafu. Moonraker (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 16. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete – All news sources I found are strictly mentions with no depth, frequently not even the subject of the one sentence where he is mentioned. Everything else is short statement transactions of the WP:ROUTINE variety. A synopsis of his career by Doug Coil when he signed to Old Glory is about as deep as it gets, and I have reservations about his website as he is the primary writer and editor per WP:RSCONTEXT. It would still only be a single source anyways. Yosemiter (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete since subject fails WP:NRU. -The Gnome (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - does not meet NRU or GNG Spiderone 20:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Motel on Murder Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing this book per WP:GNG / WP:NBOOK. ... discospinster _talk 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• This book Motel on Murder Mountain is significant to the weird menace sub-genre, and it's revival. I created the page to shine a new light on an extinct genre. This book has been mentioned in multiple articles and listings as I have mentioned in the sources section and references section. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyGhost1313 (talk • contribs) 15:11, November 8, 2020 (UTC)

• I'm moving this over from the AfD's talk page. I also want to note that I blocked the account as being for promotion only - there is more info on the user's talk page. Since I blocked the user I won't make a formal argument for or against deletion, however I will note that the sources are either unusable (Knowledge (XXG)), are Goodreads listings or forum posts created by the novella author (database, primary), books written by the novella author (primary), or do not mention the author or novella at all (ie, cannot establish notability and could be original research if used for anything about the book in specific). This will need coverage in independent and reliable sources if notability is to be proven. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is covering a notable title that is new to the market and is attempting to revive the Weird Menace sub-genre. There is several articles written about the audiobook as well as the paperback with more high level mentions coming, they will be added soon. This was created for the better of the genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyGhost1313 (talk • contribs) 18:36, November 9, 2020 (UTC)

• Moved this one down as well from the top of the page. Note: if this is deleted as a soft delete I'd recommend admins request proof of notability beforehand, otherwise it may be an easy target for further deletion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - A self-published book whose Knowledge (XXG) article was created by the author. Not a single one of the sources included is actually viable - they are either from non-reliable sources or do not mention the book at all. Searching for additional sources turns up absolutely nothing. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete the coverage I have found doesn't qualify as IRS - only user generated and connected to the subject (and mainly amazon and bookreads). It's a WP:GNG no for me. Less Unless (talk) 07:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete since the subject fails all criteria for notability. The references already cited are just more books by the same author, the epitome of a pefectly cyclical argument. More sources are harder to find than water on the sun. This is just one more episode in the never ending series of using Knowledge (XXG) as a promotional platform. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Troxler and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete – No hits in reliable news sources for either Cameron or Cam Troxler. As far as I can see, the only media source that covers him is DJCoil Rugby (which I pointed out previously, is on the low end of WP:RS due to WP:RSCONTEXT; Doug Coil is essentially the only writer and editor for that website). Mr. Coil did at least appear to give the subject a full "profile" that would seem to make that single source less than WP:ROUTINE. However, outside of single paragraph added (which consists of his entire 2019 season summary: "Cam played 8 minutes in two matches"), it is copy-n-paste identical to the his routine transaction summary of clubs he once played for shown here. As there are no other independent reliable sources of significant depth, he currently fails WP:GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of significant coverage. Does not qualify under WP:GNG or WP:NRU. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - no coverage for 'Cameron Troxler' or 'Cam Troxler' that would be enough for GNG Spiderone 21:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Rogers and not brief mentions. Starting to wonder if you are proposing the deletion of a whole squad, if so I do wonder what is going on here. Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Large numbers of articles were created under the basis that they passed WP:NRU (Major League Rugby was added with no discussion before being removed), and so pages have been created that are not notable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, there is no independent significant coverage there, and the level within the sport is too low. Geschichte (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails to meet WP:GNG. No news hits and only covered in WP:ROUTINE transactions or list-based mentions. Yosemiter (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - plenty of routine coverage which does not amount to passing GNG Spiderone 11:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news on the player signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources provide “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Hughston and not brief mentions. Moonraker (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete the sourcing is not the type that passes GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. The sources are not independent of the subject or its leagues, or are unreliable. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of quality sources available for GNG Spiderone 22:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Jack McLean (American rugby player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of the player signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about McLean and not brief mentions. Moonraker (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete – Coverage consists of a single WP:ROUTINE transaction with very little depth. The WP:COPYVIO from this article does not help either. Yosemiter (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete since subject doesn't meet WP:NRU, or even WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - sources do not establish notability Spiderone 20:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Josh Brown (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of player signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as the sources are “substantial coverage”, viz. articles about Brown and not brief mentions. But I would suggest adding a {{refimprove}} tag. Moonraker (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of sources that actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. All news sources I found were merely mentions or WP:ROUTINE transactions, primarily covered in less-than WP:RS sites. Yosemiter (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Wendell Maksinczuk Ortega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article about footballer who has never played in a fully-pro league (typically as his club's third or fourth goalkeeper). There is nearly no online Portuguese-language coverage of this footballer other than database entries and transfer announcements such as this which explains his club released him mid-season after he wasn't used (and nothing at all which would be in-depth coverage). He has appeared only in Brazilian state championships (Candango 1, Goiano 1 and Paulista A3), the Brasileiro Série D, and a single Copa do Brasil match, none of which satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly an apology. I misread an appearance in the Copa do Brasil as an appearance in Série A when removing the prod on the article. Secondly, there is a long, long recurring argument at WT:FOOTY regarding Série C and Série D in Brazil being fully professional or not. Both have identical rules (a certain number of amateur players, under a certain age, can be registered in squads), and yet for historical reasons Série C is on WP:FPL but Série D isn't. The result of this should either be to add Série D to the FPL or remove Série C from the FPL. Otherwise we are being inconsistent. Gricehead (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No apology is necessary, as I had to check his career history when doing a WP:BEFORE check in any case. :)

As far as whether Série C is a fully-pro league, I am very skeptical and believe it should be removed from the list at FPL until we have solid sourcing to support its inclusion. Série D certainly lacks that sourcing as well. Jogurney (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG, likely fails NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG and FOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete — Per rationale by both Johnpacklambert & GiantSnowman. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Resume-like BLP of businesswoman with no clear claim of notability, sourced mainly to corporate news pieces about new appointments. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I'd contend that Reses' passes WP:BIO with ongoing and in-depth coverage from RS like WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/square-names-yahoos-jackie-reses-to-head-its-lending-business-1445266066), Business Insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-yahoo-decides-to-acquire-2014-7 & https://www.businessinsider.com/jacqueline-reses-yahoos-ma-chief-2014-9) and Fortune (https://fortune.com/2020/06/16/squares-head-of-lending-thinks-the-ppp-still-needs-more-changes-to-help-the-smallest-businesses/), among others if you track back through Google News.

Given the available RS, I'd encourage continuing to build out the entry rather than outright deletion, erring on the side of increasing representation of women in finance.BelBivDov (talk)

• Delete The references are really poor and what references are there are a mix of appointment announcements, press-release, deprecated sources like Techcrunch and churnalism. The references present above, as proof that she notable are in a similar state. The first is an announcement, is dependent. The 2nd one is a name mention only. The 3rd is similar and 4th one is similar. It is a dependent source. None of them are secondary, and none of them are in-depth. They are run WP:MILL, WP:SPIP sources. scope_creep 13:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I can't see how either of the Business Insider articles specifically are dependent or mill; I'm not seeing any sign of direct contribution or churnalism. Providing a couple more articles I just found as comment below. BelBivDov (talk)

• Keep passes WP:BASIC based on multiple independent sources combined to demonstrate notability and if you do a search there is a recent American Banker article on her.--FrankTursetta (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Her business roles and position at the San Francisco Fed are a strong claim of notability, and the sources in the article and those identified above provide the reliable and verifiable coverage that support that claim. Alansohn (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment found additional articles with significant coverage, including a lengthy piece from Bloomberg w deals made while at Yahoo! (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-10/yahoo-dealmaker-reses-targets-mobile-talent-in-m-a-spree-tech?sref=fBWIv79e), and articles that describe her move from Yahoo! to Square, not as a routine announcement, but as more of a poaching situation (https://www.ft.com/content/031a3c36-7672-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89 & https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/10/19/square-hires-female-executive-jacqueline-reses-away-from-yahoo-ahead-of-ipo/?sh=7088f17f2558). I had intentionally ignored the Forbes article, but now I see it was written by a Staff writer. On my read, these are neither dependent or run of the mill. BelBivDov (talk)
• Keep The subject clearly passes WP:GNG. I have added some of the mentioned sources to the article to provide a clearer view (I haven't added the 2 last as they have the same information as the rest). Less Unless (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to meet GNG, pretty notable for a businessperson. ~EDDY ~ 03:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep This isn't even close. The only thing the article needs is some updating, as I found references to her resignation from Square effective last month, and a $5 million donation to the Wharton School of Business together with her husband. If this is deleted because it fails GNG, notability needs a serious overhaul.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Both !votes by User:Behappy 29 are disregarded. No case has been made for encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 02:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The artist does not seem to meet WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Since the subject is ukranian, my WP:BEFORE did not yield much in english searches. There may be references in non english sources. The article creator has been claiming that this person is notable. Nominating for AfD to decide on that. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• KeepPavel Stankevych won a bronze medal on one of the famous cirque festival in Paris.He is famous handstand artist.His video has millions views.Former of Cirque Du Soleil.Was invited guest on Das Supertalent,Tu Si Que Vales,Eso lo Hago Yo and because of his viral video (where he stand up from the split without hands) was invited to famous show Ellen Dedgeneres. But anyway he is laureate on professional Paris Cirque Festival Cirque De Demain.All links including in article.Sometimes people pronounce his last name incorrectly "Stankevich" Behappy 29 (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:TOOSOON, and lack of following per WP:ENT. First, let's start with social media: he has zero Wheatons, he has only 53k followers on Instagram, about 23k "like" him on Facebook (compared to over 5k for me?!), and his biggest YouTube video was a single appearance on Ellen. Secondly, I don't see any coverage about him in reliable sources, other than the aforementioned interviews/talent shows. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• What's a "Wheaton"? jp×g 02:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am sorry what?Only 53k on Instagram?First of all is it nothing?And since when on Knowledge (XXG) articles are given for the number of subscribers on Instagram?And i checked he has 23k followers on Facebook and 150k on Tik Tok.He has a lot of big video on Youtube.Checked him on all languages.(Deutsch,Italian Spanish and Russian).Former of Cirque Du Soleil.Now working with Spiegelworld in Las Vegas. And in any case, he is a laureate of the prestigious circus festival in Paris Behappy 29 (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment— For what it's worth, this article has also been nominated for deletion on Russian Knowledge (XXG) and has generated quite a bit of discussion so far. Notably, none of them over there have found Ukrainian or Russian articles in support of his notability; they are also relying on the sources from Western websites. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I have formatted the references in the article to comply with the guidelines and to have a better look on who is who. Unfortunately the coverage that can be called significant is provided by sources that are not independent or too local to be considered reliable. The subject fails notability guidelines for now. Less Unless (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• I just checked on Russian Knowledge (XXG) not everyone agree with deletion.They founded a lot of information on Google and Youtube.And on official website of Paris circus festival.I founded also information on German languages and saw live his performing on Ellen Show.Checked also on Italian and Spanish websites.They are all original.Behappy 29 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• KeepI checked all websites are original websites.He is former of Cirque Du Soleil.All websites on German are originals like Italian and Spanish. Articles like Anna Stankus Jinny Jacinto Olga Pikhienko are the same articles for their achievements at the Paris Festival.And of course I checked the original website from one of the biggest and prestige circus festival in Paris where Cirque De Demain he won a bronze medal.I even founded awarding of this festival.Now he is performing in Las Vegas with one of the best company Spiegelworld directed by Cal McCrystal.Behappy 29 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz 18:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The Amazing Maurice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence the film has entered main production, all sourced content can be merged comfortably into the book's article, this should be drafted until pre-production is shown to be notable or film is shown to enter main production, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 13:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Voice cast has been established and art from the film has been released, a practice not done unless the film is indeed in production. Rusted AutoParts 14:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with @Rusted AutoParts. Enough information about the film is available which merits its inclusion as a page. Added some more sources this morning, showing that the film has been broadly covered in various news outlets, which is more than can be said about a lot of films in this stage of production. I will also add that unlike upcoming films like Nimona (coming in 2022), the cast is actually named, so that makes it worth keeping as a page at the present, along with what the other user has stated.Historyday01 (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete The notability requirements for films is that they have multiple in-depth reviews. Which this doesn't have since it's not released yet. Therefore, this should be deleted on WP:TOSOON grounds. The sources that are in the article are extremely trivial. For instance them picking cast members. Which all movies do. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That's kinda bogus. There'd be multiple upcoming films that fail since they aren't out and reviewed yet. Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

This AfD isn't about other films. Plus, it's not like the article can't be recreated pretty easily when it comes out and there reviews of it (if there are any). --Adamant1 (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Adamant1. I think there are enough sources when it comes to this film. If there weren't as many sources, I would agree with you, but there are, in this case.Historyday01 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That’s kind of a non-answer, Adam. Saying “this isn’t about other films” doesn’t negate the fact you’re inpsijg a standard here that is not being applied elsewhere. It’s not a fair reason to advocate for deletion. Rusted AutoParts 17:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a perfectly fine answer. As Robert McClenon say's, films in production are only notable if there is something particularly notable about the production itself. Which isn't the case here. I don't have a double standard about it, because I would vote exactly the same way for the same reason if the other films had AfDs. They don't though. So they really aren't relevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Your point was that it didn’t have “multiple in-depth reviews”, not “what Robert McClenon said”. Having “multiple in-depth reviews” doesn’t occur until after release, so no, it’s not a fine answer, it’s an unfair standard you’re applying here and not to other articles. Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Adamant1 is applying an unfair standard here, without question. Historyday01 (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Historyday01: Feel free to point out another AfD about a film where I voted keep purely on the existence of sources about the casting. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you AGF and not make things personal. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me in this conversation, Adamant1, but whatever. I didn't name call or say anything bad about your character as a person, so I'm not getting "personal," whatever that means.Historyday01 (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - Please read the film notability guideline in detail again. The guideline is often misread, and films in production sometimes get accepted because the guideline is misread, but films in production are only notable if production itself is notable. Normally notability does require reviews, and reviews require that the movie be viewed. The fact that the guideline is often misread doesn't change the guideline, which is that unreleased films are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

So what exactly constitutes “notable production”? Extensive reporting on where and when it films? How many sources talk about it? What’s wrong with this articles sources to say “this production isn’t notable”? Rusted AutoParts 20:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Film isn't slated for release until sometime in 2022, voice actors were JUST cast. Animation may or may not have already begun...and even if it has, its production is hardly notable yet. The arguments being made that there are sources all center around the announcements of the film/cast. History has shown that lots of animated films get announced and then never get made/released, for example Pixar's Newt...announced (with cast) in 2008 with release in 2011. Cancelled in 2010. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per @Rusted AutoParts. The film has already started production and its references make it notable as an article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Is draftifying an option? That seems like a reasonable ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Drafting it might not be a good option if the film isn't comming out until sometime in 2022. Since that's a really long time until it will likely be notable for recreation if it ever is. I doubt the production will be notable enough on its own between now and then. Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Mmmmm, I see your point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per discussion, and the number of sources. Production seems to be going along, so keeping the article for a few more months to see if the film is still being worked on and still scheduled for release probably makes the most sense. As of now it's an anticipated film in production with continually sourced updates, which seems a sound 'keep' to me. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Randy Kryn on this one. There are a good number of sources, production is moving forward, and the film is being worked on, meaning it's an anticipated film with various updates, meaning it should be kept. Historyday01 (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge to The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents#Adaptations, which already mentions this. The whole content of this article could be worked into that paragraph with no loss of information, and broken out into an article again at some appropriate later point. BD2412 T 02:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd support a merge. Maybe other people who voted deleted would also. If so, I'll change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I also support a merge, as indicated in my rationale. The known content about this film can easily fit into a paragraph that would not overwhelm the other article. BOVINEBOY2008 11:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I can definitely see Knowledge (XXG) users doing a search on this film and would love for them to find this well-referenced, well-written article. In my mind this piece adds value to the encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Rational Software. No evidence of the subject meeting the wikipedia notability guidelines. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Rational Business Developer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Jcarlosmartins, bad sourcing is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON would you like to try another? ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I could not find any Knowledge (XXG) acceptable source. It seems like this is a non-notable article. Jcarlosmartins (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - No valid reson given for deletion and no response from nom. ~Kvng (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG - there is a total lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. There are literally no sources. An argument that a "valid reson given for deletion" was not provided is not serious in 2020. Bad sourcing is the number one reason we delete articles on Knowledge (XXG). Just to be sure, let's do some online searches: a bunch of how-to manuals, eight articles tangentially about the product, and exactly minus zero articles in newspapers indexed online. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  Bearian, what do you think about redirecting to Rational Software as an WP:ATD? ~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. I do not oppose such a AtD. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You cannot keep a redirect if there is no referenced content on the page you want to redirect to. --Jcarlosmartins (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Non notable digital media publication that lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before shows hits in non notable sources such as this, in primary sources & user generated sources all of which we don’t consider reliable. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: The media company has been referenced in over 25 Knowledge (XXG) pages, multiple times. Reference sources listed on the page are notable with Knowledge (XXG) pages of their own like TechCrunch and the Hindu newspaper. The publication has covered a variety of topics including bringing out the 'Me Too' movement in the Indian technology space. Articles published on the site are often reference in notable international technology news sites like Techmeme that are highly reliable. Logicalriver (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment — The editor above is the article creator. Furthermore please do provide us with at least 3 reliable sources that show discusses the organization/media company have been discussed with in-depth in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes, I am the creator of the article and I'm new to Knowledge (XXG). You being a senior editor know things better than I do, but I don't think that just being a geography-focused or smaller company discredits a media company from having a Wiki page and hope your decision is not biased because of this factor. As far as your request goes, here are articles and FactorDaily's coverage referenced and discussed in-depth by notable independent sources - Fortune,Reuters, PC-Mag, Quartz, CNBC TV18, WIRED, GQ India and VCCircle.Logicalriver (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Draftify The article contains a lot of peacockery and promo blurb, and many statements are unsupported. If one were to weed out the fluff and add RS citations, this perhaps could be salvaged, but I think the onus is on the creating editor to do that, hence why I'd move this to draft space rather than keep and leave it for others to do the work. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Per reliable sources indicated by Logicalriver. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Superastig, I fail to see any sources indicated by Celestina007? ─ The Aafī () 19:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Already corrected. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete The references are very poor, startup style PR and run-of-the-mill business news that don't prove the organisation is notable. The first references to ] fails WP:ORGIND. The second one is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS. The third ref is also very poor and doesn't pass WP:V/WP:SIRS. The references provided above, are news stories that perhaps were originated by the news outlet, but don't verify it as being notable, in own right. They are merely stories that originated there and were picked up by other news organisation. Anybody could have originated them. All that has been presented so far, is indicative of a very young new outlet, that hasinsufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:SIRS. If there was detailed reference available that passed WP:NCORP/WP:SIRS, they would have been present, but they're not. It is non-notable at the current time. scope_creep 17:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete The applicable guideline is WP:NCORP and while references should be reliable sources, meeting only that part of the criteria is not enough to establish notability. References must also meet additional criteria including in-depth coverage and Independent Content (facts/opinion/etc generated by the journalist). Not a single reference I can find or that is referenced in the article meets the criteria. Topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing 20:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: Referenced in academic articles - I am listing just 3 of the first 4 I checked, with about 100 hits on Google Scholar: Hyper-localizing e-Commerce Strategy: An Emerging Market Perspective, International Journal on Customer Relations, Observer Research Foundation (ORF).--Concertmusic (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement on whether the sources satisfy WP:CORP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep. The article has plenty of citations that establish GNG. For example, a Wall Street Journal article , this article by Wired Magazine, , and this piece by ABC on Yahoo news all of which have been linked in the article and cover App Academy in depth. The article definitely needs some work and is promotional in tone but not to the level of being deletion worthy and App Academy definitely satisfies GNG. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 23:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: The Wired article and the Wall Street Journal article currently on the page demonstrate clear notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • How exactly? It bears asking seeing as how you appear to know that the appropriate guideline for organizations/corporations is WP:NCORP but yet you always appear to !vote to Keep articles with bland and vague (and false) reasoning while ignoring the NCORP guidelines and requirements. In my opinion, this is bad-faith editing and disruptive behaviour as other editors have then to spend time rebutting any arguments you put forward. HighKing 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Wired and the Wall Street Journal are well-known reliable sources that fact-check their stories. Both articles are entirely about the subject, discussing it directly and in detail. I know that you and I disagree about the definition and importance of NCORP and ORGIND. You are not required to rebut my arguments, if you don't want to. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete The appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which specifically requires "Independent Content". Therefore, content provided by the company or where references rely on interviews/quotations from company officers fail the criteria for establishing notability. Of the references linked by Chess above, the WSJ reference is from the blog section and fails as a reliable source. The Wired reference relies entirely on information provided by the company and quotes from the co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND. The Yahoo reference fails for the same reasons. I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

WSJ "blogs" aren't actual blogs. They're branded as blogs but have editorial review and are actually opinion pieces by established writers. See WP:NEWSBLOG. It's bizarre that you're describing that because the article relies on an interview it is somehow not independent. Does this mean that music reviews based entirely on the artist's performance are somehow not independent from the artist? Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Chess I wasn't aware that the WSJ blogs have editorial review, can you point to somewhere that says that? Lets assume it does though for the purposes of trying to ascertain whether the article meets WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. You say that it is "bizarre" that articles that rely on an interview is somehow not independent - please see WP:ORGIND and specifically the definition of "Independent Content". Where in that article is there any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject? Once you remove the parts attributable to the interviewee, what remains is not substantial coverage. HighKing 15:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I must have looked at this eight time and couldn't make up my mind, whether to try and improve it or try and delete it. I don't think it notable. There is a lot of these coding academies now and they are entirely generic in nature, as an organisational type. NCORP is the notability standard that is used here: Of the 11 references, 8 are companies own page failing WP:SIRS, one is a blog, the wired one fails WP:ORGIND and one is Yahoo news. It is a Yohoo blog, which doesn't inspire confidence. Lastly comment to @Chess: A large number of references != notability. scope_creep 13:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Goodman, Douglas (2013-04-27). "App Academy: How a School Tuition Of $12,000 Leads To Annual Salary Of $83,000 in 9 Weeks". Mic. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  2. Borland, Ken (2017-05-11). "This software-school startup doesn't make students pay -- until they score a job". CNN. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  3. Wohlsen, Marcus (2013-03-15). "Tuition at Learn-to-Code Boot Camp Is Free — Until You Get a Job". Wired. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  4. Douglas, Nick (2018-10-22). "Learn Web Development for Free With App Academy". Lifehacker. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow App Academy to pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I see this as bad-faith editing by presenting routine and WP:MILL coverage as suitable references, when in fact it is disingenuous reasoning that completely ignores WP:NCORP. Lets examine them:

• App Academy: How a School Tuition Of $12,000 Leads To Annual Salary Of $83,000 in 9 Weeks Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance
• "It enables us to train a greater number of folks and it helps us succeed," App Academy CEO Kush Patel told CNNTech. " a win-win." Fails WP:ORGIND
• ] "The risk to us is students might want to go back to school or start their own business— or simply change their minds," Patel says. "We're actually very confident students can get jobs." Interview with founders. Fails WP:ORPGIND.
• Reads like a press-release with a link in the opening sentence to the site. App Academy founder Kush Patel tells Lifehacker that while Codecademy is a good resource for all sorts of programming Fails WP:ORGIND. Another interview. The four references are entirely unsuitable for establishing notability. They all fail WP:NCORP. scope_creep 18:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It is a recurring problem that Cunard posts links to references that are supposed to meet the criteria for establishing notability but that most of the time, they fail the criteria. I've pointed this out on multiple occasions as it is deliberately misleading, disruptive, and causes other editors to check each link in order to provide a rebuttal. Cunard has been around long enough and commented on enough AfD's by now to know about NCORP's criteria. Instead, based on Cunard's continal lack of any reference to NCORP in his !votes, it appears that Cunard refuses to accept NCORP and chooses instead to use a loose (and incorrect) interpretation of GNG to justify his !votes. As I said, this is disruptive and needs to stop. HighKing 14:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - The above two comments are unnecessary personalization, bordering if not crossing personal attack territory. Cunard views things differently than you do. That's allowed here. We are here to build an encyclopedia, some people do that by improving the quality of the encyclopedia by removing non-encyclopedic content, and others do that by trying to rescue articles and demonstrating content as being encyclopedic. Presenting sources for consideration is not a disruptive action. You are allowed to disagree with those sources, and the analysis in disagreement thereof is not disruptive either. Building content is hard work, why should deleting content be easy? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Evaluating sources is a part of this process. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to .30-03. I have also merged a small bit into the target article, which - aside from the redlink in the infobox - did not previously mention it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

.30-01 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. BEFORE showed tertiary sources with mentions and listings, but nothing that demonstrates WP:N.   // Timothy :: talk  04:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  04:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to .30-03. I don't know much about ammo, but it appears this is the predecessor to the .30-03 and it is currently listed in that article's infobox. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia 15:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. If the content ultimately belongs elsewhere or should take a different form, that is a content dispute to be resolved on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

List of monsters in Marvel Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a collection of trivial characters under a topic that has no actual definition. There is no in-universe character trait/race called "monster" that I can see, so it's just an indiscriminate list of trivial characters. TTN (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• If the goal is to change the scope of the topic into a topic on a franchise(?) rather than the current indiscriminate list, I'll withdraw this. TTN (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I did not do a deep source check, but I was able to find some coverage from news publications, including real world commentary on the subject:

https://screenrant.com/marvel-monsters-changed-comics-code/

https://www.denofgeek.com/comics/marvels-31-best-monsters/

https://comicbook.com/marvel/news/5-best-marvel-monsters-ever/

https://www.cbr.com/marvel-best-monsters-before-silver-age/

The topic itself clearly isn't WP:OR, and it verifiably had an impact on the Comics Code Authority. My instinct is to convert the article to prose or add a couple of paragraphs about it somewhere else. Darkknight2149 22:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• • That being said, the article does need to be altered from its current form. Right now, it's practically asking for passing readers to add random characters based on their own opinions on what a monster is. Darkknight2149 22:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: The monsters of the pre-Silver Age were a big deal during that time period and there seems to sources still now. Where do you think Groot and Fin Fang Foom came from? Jhenderson 23:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jhenderson777: Would it make more sense to convert the article to prose, and have it discuss the topic of Monsters in Marvel Comics / Marvel Monsters as a whole? I definitely agree with you that the topic has a degree of notability based on the sources:

I think there are ways to make the page more informative and comprehensive to readers than just listing off a bunch of characters, which is essentially a WP:OR attractant right now. Darkknight2149 23:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - Let this page stay. As mentioned above, the monsters of the pre-Silver Age were a big deal in comics. Plus, some of the monster characters who had pages on this website were redirected to this article. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per comments above - noting that there are several WP:RS in the article - per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Convert to prose format: Per my comments above. I think any notable examples of Marvel Monsters would come up naturally in the history text, and having it in its current form is likely to attract original research. I think having it simply list off monsters also robs the topic of its encyclopedic value. Given the role that monsters played in the Comics Code Authority, development of superheroes, and in Marvel's history, there are more informative ways of tackling the topic. Darkknight2149 00:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep and make it way better. The history of Marvel "monster comics" is well discussed in books about Marvel comics. But yes, the article as it exists does not really tell that story; it should be comprehensively rewritten. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Everyone so far in the AfD has not given a single policy-based reason for keeping the article. The topic may be able to be covered in prose, but that really has no bearing on this since it would require a total rewrite. This article in particular is heavily reminiscient of the D&D monster lists, in that it's all plot and solely primary sourced. If someone wishes to save a local copy of it for help writing the new article so be it, but that doesn't mean it should be kept._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Because article content does not determine notability. People are voting "keep" on the basis of the topic having sufficient coverage. People are saying "rewrite in prose form" because the current revision of the article is a mess. "This article is poorly written, poorly sourced trash" in itself isn't a reason for deletion. WP:ATD is a Knowledge (XXG) policy and it says upfront: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Every flawed article is not solved through deletion. Darkknight2149 06:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The article's title contains "List", and there is no guarantee it will be moved and totally rewritten upon the close of this AfD. People often say an article should be remade and it never happens. I feel the best option is not to keep in the hopes of a future change but delete pending a future resubmission._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep entirely reasonable subject for a list. Artw (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Whether you believe it is a reasonable subject does not really matter, WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ILIKEIT. What matters is whether it's a suitable subject for a Knowledge (XXG) list, AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, it relies on evidence and consensus._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You deletionists are not adhering to WP:JUSTAPOLICY, WP:Not notable, WP:ASSERTN, WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:IGNORINGATD,WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. So we need to stop nitpicking because these AFD’s are a mess of bad arguments from both sides IMO. Jhenderson 18:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

List pages pretty much exist to be useful. Artw (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Potentially merge to List of Marvel Comics characters. Seems unreasonable that this exists on its own, unless I'm missing something. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep and rework into prose as suggested. No prejudice against relisting this article for a second nomination for AfD if it doesn't improve within a reasonable amount of time. Haleth (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Tagaytay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Tagaytay is a city with a population little over 70 000. I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

• Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Knowledge (XXG) article.
• Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Emporis and a thread in Skyscraper City do not constitute significant coverage.
• I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Tagaytay' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
• No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
• The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR as it is almost entirely a copy and paste from Emporis.
• The city is not the largest in The Philippines nor is it the capital.
• I really do not believe that a building simply having more than 11 floors makes it notable.

Similar AfDs for reference: List of tallest buildings in Gwalior and List of tallest buildings in Saguenay, Quebec Spiderone 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:LISTN based on all of the above. Ajf773 (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: nom said it all.   // Timothy :: talk  09:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:SNOW, and my own lax standards. Tagaytay is known insularly as a resort, but not internationally, although my partner and his family own real property in Cavite. Nevertheless, this city is not so big, popular, or well-known to have notable skyscrapers; the biggest is a mere 21 floors. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Lorstaking 04:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a listing of non-notable buildings (with the "tallest" having 21-23 floors) with no Wikilinks. The status of Tagaytay as a famous tourist destination is not a reason to maintain this minimal list. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:GNG.--ERAMnc 11:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

This database has had problem tags since 2010. There are no third party sources cited, so there is no establishment of notability. This database is part of the American Medical Association and someone proposed a merge to there, but without sources I identify no content to merge. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete I had proposed the merge previously, but I now support delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Oliver O'Dea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an odd one. For starters, he doesn't look notable. Two, he seems to have died recently, although I could find no obituary beyond a death notice. But weirder: a relative of his has requested his article be deleted, and claims that the article is in part a hoax Ticket:2020111110002678. It doesn't quite meet the letter of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE however, as the subject isn't living, but it certainly seemed enough to open an AfD over. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ⚓ 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek <sthin up>Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak delete. There are a handful of sources which seem to support some of the content. And at least a partial claim to some notability. Including this and this. However, it has to be noted that these are not especially reliable sources (an otherwise ROTM website and a reprinted UK tabloid news article). The sources in the article are also somewhat light (an archived webpage and IMDB entry which may or may not relate to the subject). Personally I'm not sure that SIGCOV is met (given that sources are thin on the ground, and those that can be found are somewhat thin in content). Absent something more substantive, I'd err towards deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete very clearly a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NBOX....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Given that the subject does not seem to meet NBOX and having seen the OTRS ticket, I see no reason not to honour what seems to be a reasonable request for deletion by the subject's relative. Best, Blablubbs 01:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete, sole keep vote provides no sources to support claim of gng and therefore is nothing in the article to indicate GNG. A redirect would probably not be appropriate given there is no mention of her in her former clubs article and no indication of a valid article other than that. Fenix down (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I removed the PROD as per procedure as Smith was part of an AfD before and was kept. A WP:BEFORE search is not revealing much about her, though, and the coverage that I can find is quite trivial . I would have to agree with User:Geschichte's reasons for deletion. Spiderone 20:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet any Knowledge (XXG) guideline. Geschichte (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 57 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid alternatives exist. If she is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't generally redirect non-notable footballers anywhere. I suppose it could be redirected to Newcastle Jets but it makes little sense as that article has no info about Smith. Spiderone 20:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Alternative versions of Barbara Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non-notable WP:CONTENTFORK from Barbara Gordon and Barbara Gordon in other media. If an article is getting too long, the answer is to summarize and clean-up, instead of creating endless article splits, as per WP:WAF. The reliable third party sources do not support this as three separate topics, and this does not independently meet the WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - The topic fails to establish notability to meet WP:GNG. Per WP:WAF, the main article should summarize excessive in-universe content. There is no justification in splitting this, and I feel a merge is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete: agree with nom, WP:CONTENTFORK from Barbara Gordon and Barbara Gordon in other media that does not meet guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  13:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CONTENTFORK without any sources. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge with Barbara Gordon. Referenced parts may be merged, no need for a stand-lone article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as a WP:CONTENTFORK that does not meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Already covered in the first article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

List of minor The Mighty Boosh characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list is completely unsourced or cited to primary sources, and cannot meet the WP:GNG. Combining random non-notable minor characters into a singular list gives you a non-notable list. There is already a List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters, and this WP:CONTENTFORK does not meet our encyclopedic standards. Jontesta (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge with List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters - Nomination fails to justify deletion. "This list is completely unsourced or cited to primary sources" is a mischaracterisation of WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, the quality of sources in the article do not determine notability. "Combining random non-notable minor characters into a singular list gives you a non-notable list" is also a direct misunderstanding of notability. Plenty of minor characters receive coverage and plenty of major characters have no coverage (minor character =/= trivia). And per WP:LISTN, the topic for a list can be independently notable while its individual components are not. With that in mind, "WP:CONTENTFORK does not meet our encyclopedic standards" needs to be better substantiated. Darkknight2149 00:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete- This is badly sourced, referenced almost entirely to the show itself, and a quick spot check of a few random entries convinces me that that there is nothing better out there. I agree with the nominator that this does not meet our notbaility requirements. As for a merge, I looked at List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters and it too is a lot of badly sourced fancruft that would not be improved by putting more of it in. Reyk _YO! 10:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge referenced content with List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters then rename it to the Lists of The Mighty Boosh characters (currently a redirect for those two). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete - Offshoots of characters labelled minor are generally too minor to even mention. This cannot stand as its own topic, but maybe some are worth covering in the main list? TTN (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete as there are no sources, despite claims otherwise. Cannot meet WP:GNG otherwise. No objection to a selective merge should this end with a redirect. Striving for consensus and WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge referenced content to List of recurring The Mighty Boosh characters per Piotrus.   // Timothy :: talk  19:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor characters in the Revolution at Sea Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list is completely unsourced or cited to primary sources, and cannot meet the WP:GNG. Combining random non-notable minor characters into a singular list gives you a non-notable list. None of these characters meet the WP:GNG separately or as a compilation, with the exception of articles about historic figures that don't help establish notability of this fiction. Jontesta (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete This non-sourced list does not meet the WP:GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: Not a single reference. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG/WP:NLIST _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

List of fictional revolutions and coups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a list of random examples with only unsourced information or primary information. The few sources are only discussing the concept in passing, or recapping WP:PLOT information, which is insufficient to meet WP:NOT. Maybe an article about the overall concept of revolutionary fiction could be notable, but "list of incidents" is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE topic that fundamentally cannot meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG, due to it being a ubiquitous and vaguely defined plot device (list includes all kinds of military and political actions), and due to a lack of sources describing this concept in direct detail. Jontesta (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Entirely WP:OR. WP:TNT may also definitely apply here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as too broad. There are way too many examples to make a meaningful list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - There is not a single source being used in this article. Regardless on whether or not the concept of fictional revolutions in general could potentially be notable, this list is completely made up of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and should not be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The single source used in this 60k article appears to be a blog, so basically all the content here appears to be WP:OR. Even if sources can be found discussing this concept as a group to satisfy WP:LISTN I think what is currently here is a good candidate for WP:TNT. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Entirely WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, indiscriminate list of fictional events, not unlike the many other "List of fictional X" articles we've deleted over the years. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete this list is indiscriminate, it even includes some corporate actions that would never meet any standard definition of inclusion even if the words are occasionally used by analogy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This list has existed since 16 July 2005.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete This is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of fictional events. Also, it is incomplete (under his eye). 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: With prejudice. Undiscriminating collection of trivia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete pure trivia with OR issues (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to New Gods. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

List of New Gods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is a series of unverifiable, unsourced or primary sourced plot details, violating both the WP:GNG and WP:NOT#PLOT. Most of the notable characters in this universe already have articles, along with the main New Gods article. Going beyond that with a separate topic is untenable because there are not enough reliable independent sources to create an independent article of this scope. Jontesta (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge with New Gods or Move to List of New Gods characters - I was tempted to vote "Keep" because of how ridiculously notable the New Gods (and their pantheon) are, even on the simplest of WP:BEFORE tests. But on second thought, there's no reason a less wordy version of this list can't be covered on the main page. However, if we move the page, it will need to be edited, expanded, and rewritten because of the poor writing. Darkknight2149 20:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete There is little to merge here. Only three names in the entire list are sourced, the rest do not even have primary sources. Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge - The New Gods are definitely notable, and as Darkknight2149 said, a quick search brings up plenty of sources. That said, the list needs to be massively cleaned up. This should really be limited to those characters that either are blue linked to their own articles, or have at least one non-primary source supporting the information, which the vast majority of the characters here do not. Additionally, all of the characters listed here who are not New Gods (the various human characters, the Old Gods, etc) should also be removed. At that point, I feel that the remainder of this list would be short enough that it would make sense to Merge it to the main New Gods article as suggested. Rorshacma (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per Dimadick. There is not much to merge. I really don't see almost any of these list members surviving an AfD themselves. Similar to the D&D monsters lists, we don't have to wait for the non-notable list entries to go before removing the non-notable list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect - Either solution is fine, but it seems to make more sense just to start a new list of bluelinks than merge this mess of a list with its circular redirect and redirects to nowhere. TTN (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as these characters are already covered in their own article, and there is no additional content to make this independently notable as stated in the WP:GNG. I would accept some kind of section in the main article linking to the notable characters, for navigation purposes, but this is already covered in the template. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or Move to List of New Gods characters per the suggestion of @Darkknight2149:. Some of the New Gods characters currently redirect there and we have to have them redirect somewhere on this website. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Excuse my frankness, but can anyone here cite an actual policy-based reason for outright deletion? As both myself and Rorshacma have pointed out, even the simplest of WP:BEFORE tests will bring up coverage pertaining to New Gods characters (which in itself is an influential comic book property). Aside from that, there is a "But the article is not well sourced" vote, a vote citing that vote, and a couple of others that seem tentatively in favour of a redirect/merge, but maybe not really (?). Darkknight2149 19:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• I don't debate that the New Gods are notable, but this is just pure plotcruft and lists every minor character. I don't think that the New Gods need a separate article to discuss their notable members, but either way, this is not that article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge with New Gods. Dream Focus 22:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Obscure topic which does not meet the WP:GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Read: WP:IDONTKNOWIT. The topic isn't obscure at all and it passes WP:GNG given the existence of coverage. Darkknight2149 22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge with New Gods. It does seem like an indiscriminate directory list, with even the Old Gods being mentioned. Haleth (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I thought about redirecting this to New Gods but why bother? The title is unlikely to be search for, and this seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NLIST otherwise. Nothing to merge, as this is almost totally unreferenced, too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Given the prominence that the New Gods have in both comic book history and in the DC Universe, and the demonstrable existence of heavy coverage, List of New Gods is a likely search term. Ignorance on the topic is not the same thing as cruft. Darkknight2149 22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to New Gods in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE; the underlying topic is indisputably notable, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Abbotsford, British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article opens with "None of Abbotsford's tallest buildings are among the tallest in Canada" which says it all really. I know that there is no definite line drawn as to when "List of tallest buildings in ___" become notable or not notable. I would say, however, that wherever we draw that line, this article must fall short of those standards. It fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

• Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Knowledge (XXG) article.
• Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
• I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Abbotsford' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
• No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
• The whole article is currently a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR as it is almost entirely a copy and paste from Skyscraperpage.
• The city is not the largest in British Columbia nor is it the capital.
• I really do not believe that a building being taller than 50m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Vancouver and Montreal so why are we doing it here?

Similar AfDs for reference: List of tallest buildings in Thunder Bay and List of tallest buildings in Saguenay, Quebec Spiderone 19:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This information is non-notable trivia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Having taller buildings than Chilliwack, Richmond and White Rock is not exactly a notable distinction. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, the list fails WP:LISTN. There aren't reliable sources, Abbotsford isn't a major city, and none of the buildings are actually very tall. I doubt anyone is gonna build a skyscraper in Abbotsford but if at some point in the future they build more than one, maybe this page would be warranted. Samsmachado (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: nom said everything that needs to be said.   // Timothy :: talk  09:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Tall buildings in Abbotsford has been mentioned as a group by Skyscraper Page. SO IT MEETS WP:LISTN and should bot be deleted. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that user submitted content? Are there any other sources discussing the tall buildings of Abbotsford? Spiderone 20:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per mom, past outcomes, and my own low standards. Not a single building is over 26 stories, and none are notable themselves, thus violating WP:LIST. It is well-established that mirroring a single source violates one of our core rules: we report but do not create original research. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per precedence that's becoming quite ample. Geschichte (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I am trully cautious, but this might be copyvio according to this and this The Banner talk 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, the Subject is notable, but if someone could have a word with the creator about copyright, that would be great. Vexations (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete There are several cite errors in the article. I would say delete unless they were fixed, in which case weak keep. ~Cupper (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Meets WP:NARTIST: the article itself claims he is in a half dozen museum collections. I have already confirmed one collection, and the others seem likely. The article is by a student editor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I've confirmed three collections (example). The page is a great addition to Knowledge (XXG). It needs some cleanup, but the notability is very clear.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note that I did not nominate because of notability but because op copyright concerns. At the time of nominating it was 58% copyvio. The Banner talk 20:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The Banner, I don't believe AfD is the right venue for copyright concerns. That would either be CSD, or simply edit out the offending portions and request a revdel. Onel5969 20:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio has been fixed. I think the history should be left for a few days, as this is a class project, and perhaps the teacher would like to see that copyvio.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops, just saw this note. I'll refrain from working on it so the student editor can engage. (I got excited learning about this artist.) Netherzone (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, confirmed the Gilcrease Museum and the Heard Museum. Passes WP:NARTIST. Onel5969 20:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly meets notability requirements per WP:NARTIST by way of museum collections mentioned above by ThatMontrealIP and onel5969. Netherzone (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

As my concern was copyvio only: request speedy close as keep. The Banner talk 21:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The Banner, I removed the dups the dup detector identified. For the closer's edification: do you think a {{copyvio-revdel}} would be warranted here?

Cupper52, this AfD could be closed speedily except for your conditional delete !vote (which I don't believe discloses a genuine WP:DELREASON—citation errors are not grounds for deletion). Would you consider striking your delete? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

And also it was created by a student editor. ~Cupper (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know it is not prohibited to student-editors - or any other type of editor - to write articles. So please, with draw your delete vote and lets get this over with. The Banner talk 18:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hotel Palma Bellver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD and BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article provides no indication of notability. There is routine, mill, coverage, advertising, promos.   // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, random hotel, does not meet GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Based on ratings, it appears to be nice, but there's too little coverage. There's no coverage in major tour guides. I feel meh so am wiling to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 19:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hotel Best Western Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD and BEFORE showed nothing that meets RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.   // Timothy :: talk  18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The article title seems to be misspelled, as it was called Hotel Best Western Parc, and it has since been renamed Ramada by Wyndham Bucharest Parc. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete The hotel does not meet the WP:GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MILL. Now, at 13 floors, it is not by anyone's definition of notably tall. There's no indication it's historic. It belongs to a chain of franchised hotels that are, to be blunt, not picky. COI: I used to work for the lawyer who represented a Best Western when I clerked for her. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - no indication of historic significance Spiderone 10:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 19:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Jan Paul Huissoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Possible vanity. Jdcooper (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Citations on Scholar are pretty weak for what I assume is a high-citation field, and no other WP:NPROF criterion besides C1 seems relevant. Certainly does not pass WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PROF. This person is a "professor of knowledge". Very funny indeed. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. He publishes as "Jan P. Huissoon" so the search above that spells out his middle name is not accurate. But even correcting for that, I didn't find enough citations to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1, and there doesn't seem to be any other claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus that he fails WP:NPOL, and no attempt has been made to identify which specific sources qualify him to pass WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Richard Goldberg (Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This subject appears to fall short of notability. He was rather nebulously an "advisor", and other than that his article appears to be a string of associations with actually notable people (e.g., he "works closely with" a U.S. Special Representative, and was an advisor or staffer to various politicians). These placements are not sufficient to garner notability, which is not WP:INHERITED from employers or advisees. BD2412 T 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, which AFAICS is the only relevant SNG; also fails WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (???) / (!!!) 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, As the Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction at White House’s National Security Council, Richard Goldberg is definitely independently notable. He satisfies WP:INHERITED, WP:NPOL, ... I will add the reliable sources to the article. AbDaryaee (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @AbDaryaee: How can WP:INHERITED be satisfied? It is an essay explaining that notability cannot be inherited. Besides, WP:NPOL is not satisfied as Goldberg has never held public office. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete He WP:INHERITED his notability. Needs to delete. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, With respect to all, I believe Mr. Goldberg is considered notable for his position in the White house. AbDaryaee (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This is basically repeating what you have already said above. However, having a position in the White House does not automatically confer notability on an individual. The subject in this case was not subject to Senate confirmation, nor were they in a position directly appointed by the President, and solely reporting to the President. BD2412 T 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The executive office of the president of the United States has 4000 employees. A huge number of them have some titles, and lots of them rotate a lot. Clearly they are not all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable political functionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MILL - staff in the Trump WH come and go so often, and they have so little authority to do anything, that Rachel Maddow has a wall of their names in tiny print, and they are the object of ridicule on Twitter and late night shows. We are not a LinkedIn for desperate WH staff who know they are about to be fired by tweet. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete we are not "linkedin" for political types which is how it reads now, and not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep- 9 refs for a small article. Dswitz10734 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - I see what appear to be at least 5 apparently-RS in the citations, which should make it clear that WP:GNG is satisfied. WP:NPOL is therefore irrelevant. WP:INHERITED seems to be being invoked in the sense of "they're only notable because X" - which is an argument to avoid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Seeing reliable sources in the citations doesn't mean that those sources discuss the subject in depth. Which sources here are both reliable and provide substantial coverage of the subject? BD2412 T 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable functionary, lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. If it is kept, it definitely needs renaming. Mr Goldberg is most certainly not an Illinois! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. per AleatoryPonderings and Bearian. BlueD954 (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Article about footballer who has only played semi-professionally except for one Belgian first division match. There is nearly no online Portuguese- or Flemish-language coverage of this footballer other than database entries (and nothing at all which would be in-depth coverage except an article about his famous footballing family - of which he is clearly the least accomplished). Although having played in one Belgian first division match creates a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, there is a long-standing consensus that when an article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this does, the presumption isn't valid. Jogurney (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails GNG, far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - fails GNG comprehensively I'm afraid Spiderone 21:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The GCSE for Science doesn't need its own page. There's no GCSE English or GCSE Maths pages, so I don't see how the Science one is unique aside from offering three topics. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dominicmgm (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• This article was created by merging three shorter articles (which definitely didn't need their own articles). Maybe as a balance it could be merged into GCSE? Crookesmoor (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - content is sourced and accurate. Other GCSE pages can be created, I can even possibly assist with this. Overall, not a bad article. Doesn't seem to match a deletion reason. Eyebeller (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Honestly, this looks fine to me. Included material is too specific to comfortably be merged into the mothership article (which deals with the broader concept). GCSE English and GCSE Maths might be worth creating, using this kind of material. - The article could do without the random "illustrative" squirrels and cyclists, though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  I've removed the pictures. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep GCSE Science is unusually complicated in that there are three subdivisions -- Biology, Chemistry and Physics -- which can be taken selectively or combined to result in single, double or triple awards. Here's an explanation. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - the fact that an article doesn't yet exist for GCSE Mathematics or GCSE English is not a reason for deleting this one Spiderone 12:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Spiderone and Elmidae— Ad Meliora ∕_Contribs 17:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

It so seems that this Choudhury article was created by a sockpuppet who has since been indefinitely banned and the strangest thing is over the years, users who have edited the subject's article have only been involved in editing this vanity article. It does not end here. Most of the sources cited on this article are either irrelevant or do not exist. This vanity article which seems to have been created by the subject itself should be deleted at the soonest. Cinewoman06 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to the daily log. Fixed now--I have not yet formed an opinion of my own on the nomination itself. Nominating account has no other edits. --Finngall 15:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall 15:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall 15:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Very notable actress who has played the lead in several films. Not to mention the amount of references available on the internet. , , , , , , , and , , and . — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamilMirchi (talk • contribs) 19:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@TamilMirchi: As someone who should be familiar with the General Notability Guideline, dumping a wall of links doesn't typically sway an AFD. Which of these sources qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

These are the sources. , , , , and . --TamilMirchi (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's take those sources one by one:

1. TOI tells us that Choudhury was in Dahleez, it says that she was largely out of work, but did a few commercials, and it tells us that she's going to be in Spotlight. In depth coverage? I think not.
2. This TOI piece seems fairly detailed, but considering the byline is "Timesofindia.com", without any specific writer, it has the shape of a press release, which would not be considered independent.
3. This Deccan Chronicle piece merely mentions that she was in Surya vs Surya and Manasuku Nachindi, and that one time she did a water workout. Hardly in-depth coverage.
4. This Deccan Chronicle piece tells us that she is Bengali, that she will be in a film directed by Deva Katta, that she is also going to be in Surya vs. Surya, and that she has signed a Tamil film. There is zero other information about her.
5. The Indian Express article tells us three facts about the subject: she works in Bengali and Telugu films, she's a lead in Spotlight, 3) She was previously in Dahleez.

So assuming that the lengthy TOI piece is not a press release, only one of the sources you weeded out speaks about the subject in depth. The other stuff is fluff and would do very little to establish notability. So I don't think anybody has adequately demonstrated that the subject meets the General Notability Guideline. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is one more: --TamilMirchi (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: TamilMirchi has been indefinitely blocked for violating WP:PAID. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NACTOR. Has significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Note: A differently-named user, Asiljohn, complained at this AFD about the Tridha Choudhury article being a "hoax" . Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Finngall 21:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: She has numerous citations by one of the biggest newspaper in India, India Times. -- Juju (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jujucabana: Since you are participating in an AFD, I have to assume you are familiar with our general notability guidelines, and since AFDs are decided on strength of argument, not vote, can you elaborate on your answer? The mere fact that someone is mentioned in one of the biggest newspapers in India doesn't make them notable by default. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Numerous headlines about the topic in the third biggest newspaper in India is enough to pass the general notability guidelines. It is significant coverage, reliable, and "independent of the subject." This was ridiculous to even contest and I can't believe that someone did that. They must not have read the notability guidelines at all. - Juju (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Headlines are not significant coverage. Detailed writing about the subject is significant coverage. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Hate to vote against this one, but I have to agree with @Cypoidbomb - I don't see the notability. Subject here has been mentioned in headlines, and has a bunch of films credited to her name, but how does that make her any different from the other thousands of actors/actresses who have also accomplished this? Is there anything else that makes her truly notable?10Sany1? (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• As you said, she has a bunch of films to her credit like thousands of other actors who have also accomplished this. That itself makes her "truly notable." -- Ab207 (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. Acting is a job. Many people have jobs. Being in films doesn't by default make someone more important than, say, a plumber. This is why we have our various notability criteria. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• I understand that merely being an actor doesn't establish notability. But Choudhury has played a leading role in at least three notable films, namely, Surya vs Surya (2015), Manasuku Nachindi (2018), and Anukunnadi Okkati Ayyandhi Okati (2020), hence satisfying WP:NACTOR. The user voting above may have overlooked/not assessed that part. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, I don't raise these points just to be a dick--people often !vote in AFDs and make statements that aren't reflective of actual community preferences (like the thing above about headlines). So it's important to me to make sure that people are arguing properly. It's nice to see that you understand the guidelines. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have argued on policy in my earlier comment instead of beating around the bush. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The subject passes WP:NACTOR criteria, but fails GNG. ─ The Aafī () 19:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• These two sources are fairly detailed and about the subject: . I'm on the fence about the first one since it has no clear writer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  Cyphoidbomb, I understand the GNG requirements but the subject's roles in Mishawr Rawhoshyo, Khaad, Surya vs Surya, Khawto, Manasuku Nachindi, Shesh Theke Shuru, Seven, Anukunnadi Okkati Ayyandhi Okati is a lot? Along with the roles in Dahleez. I would regard this enough for the subject meeting the SNG criteria. I've already said that the subject fails GNG, and arguably the article you're referring to, maybe a paid one or from the editorial? Who knows? I guess if the SNG criteria is somehow met, we may keep the article adding curation tags to it, without pushing the GNG thing? I know GNG is everything, but SNG too is something? Ain't it? ─ The Aafī () 08:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the specific notability guideline is significant, and you'll notice that I've neither !voted in this AFD nor am I arguing with anybody about whether or not the subject is notable. I'm just performing due diligence to point out that on this page there are at least two articles written about the subject that are in depth and from reliable sources. Well, TOI is a bit of a grey area, but I don't think they've really been challenged when it comes to fluffy entertainment pieces. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  Cyphoidbomb, My bad, Sorry! ─ The Aafī () 15:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep- While in-depth coverage about her seems to be the slightly lacking, her acting career looks notable with quite a few acting credits to her name. Sunshine1191 (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep as played prominent roles in multiple notable films and easily passes WP:NACTOR.Faizal batliwala (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Cursory glance at page; good number of works. Germsteel (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. She has had too many roles for a redirect to make sense. I can userfy on request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Fails all criteria of WP:NACTOR and lacks the significant coverage required by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. (1) She does not appear to have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", only having a recurring role in The Mystery Files of Shelby Woo, with other wiki articles of films on her IMDb page not listing her or being minor roles; (2) she does not appear to have "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"; and (3) she does not appear to have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". TheSandDoctor 03:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 03:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 03:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor 03:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This is what I could find - She acted in a (notable?) play called The Death of Papa,, but I'm not sure if the role is significant. She was also a panelist on the game show Figure it Out in 1997. I added some general biographical info to the article, too. As far as I can tell, it seems she got married and her name was changed to Preslaysa Williams and she started writing books as well. I don't see any of her acting parts or books as significant enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. She seems to have just gotten a book deal with Avon Books, so it's possible this article is WP:TOOSOON (which is weird to say about an article that is so old). I think it'd be best to redirect to The Mystery Files of Shelby Woo to keep the article's history. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete It is very clear that her acting career does not make her a notable actress. She may at some point become a notable writer, but getting a deal to publish is never the point at which a writer becomes notable, so we should delete now with no prejudice against recreation if her writing career in the future leads to her being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I brought up the book deal not because it makes her notable, but because Edwards has gotten scattered coverage (and the article has an old history) and it may be enough that it's worth having a redirect instead of a hard delete. I think saving the edit history with a redirect could be a good alternative to deletion (partially because some of the sources in the article are old enough - from the 1990s - that they might be difficult to track down again). - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep since article clearly passes WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG as well (the most common reason why an article may be nominated is if it fails GNG). If it happens, it will happen. (non-admin closure) JTZegers
_Aura 14:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

SpaceX Crew-3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:CRYSTAL Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Author: Quite funny, since I just finished editing the article, 5 minutes before your marked for deletion. NO possible time for you to READ and DIGEST (Think). In your own words from your page: “I'm useless at source editing ...”. Then WHY are you here?
  I held off submission, until sufficient citations (sources) existed. Some of these citations are now 6 weeks old, I added the Twitter citation/reference (from ESA) — it is not single source. Aware Knowledge (XXG) frowns on Twitter sources.
  OTHER Knowledge (XXG) space articles have the information presented, in this article, some with citations and others without (you must have missed those). Beatgr (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:CRYSTAL criteria. Beatgr (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place – The mission is definitely notable, it is scheduled to take place just 10 months from now, and the page is backed by suitable citations. Nuff said. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: because clearly this article is about an upcoming mission, and with be recreated in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.250.61 (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per Rosbif73. --Patriccck (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Mission will happen, less than one year from now and the crew is known. Hektor (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep but remove unreferenced (or reference it) and wrong informations. Examples: There is no information about this mission in Clark Stephens Launch Schedule, I don't found any reference to the first 3 Crew members, I don't found any information about Crew Dragon Resilience will be used (see also Axiom Space-1 in SpaceX Dragon 2), ... Barny22 (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• This discussion is only about whether or not the article should exist. Potential improvements should be discussed on the article's talk page. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• That was placeholder (SpaceflightNow, Launch Schedule). Typically they do not post until on Eastern Range calendar. Beatgr (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, passes WP:CRYSTAL and is most certainly notable. There is literally no reason to delete it. Ultimograph5 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, we have always had future crewed missions given their own articles. This flight is in the manifest and will be launching. Zerbey (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, "Fails WP:CRYSTAL" my butt. Passes and also passes WP:GNG. Kill two birds with one stone.JTZegers
  _Aura 14:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• We all make mistakes, as the Dalek said climbing off the dustbin. Do feel free to close, no objections from my side, consensus is clearly keep. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Procedural close due to article being redirected. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

UFC Fight Night 191 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:CRYSTAL Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to UCL Faculty of Life Sciences. Sandstein 18:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a division of a department of a faculty: "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect to UCL Faculty of Life Sciences, where it is mentioned in the list of departments. I'm not seeing enough notability for a standalone article, the only reference given is an internal newsletter and I've not been able to find any substantial, independent coverage. There is a fair amount of coverage of work that has come out of the department, but I can't find any sources discussing the department itself. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. In most cases with only one !vote I'd relist, but given the promotional tone of the article and the fact it was created by an editor now indeffed for undisclosed paid editing, that's a delete. If this can be rewritten neutrally and GNG-compliant, by all means it may be undeleted/recreated. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

most of the sources comes from Forbes's contributors(not editors), and I'm in doubt about these sources are primary sources/written like an advertisement. Ahmetlii (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Not seeing anything that establishes a WP:GNG or WP:NCORP pass. Likely WP:PROMO piece. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 19:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Article about a children's book series failing to meet WP:NBOOK. McMatter /_(contrib) 14:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. McMatter /_(contrib) 14:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. McMatter /_(contrib) 14:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as I found a single review. Nothing in Publishers Weekly or Gale Literature. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm a little surprised at the lack of coverage out there as a whole, to be honest. There's just not enough out there to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Programmable logic controller. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad  ✿   19:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

List of programmable logic controller manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable (and tagged for lack of notability since 2010) and unsourced. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Manufacturers of programmable logic controllers as a single topic has never received significant coverage in reliable sources. List therefore fails WP:LISTN 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to programmable logic controller. With just a few minutes searching, I was able to add three sources that had listed and modestly discussed PLC manufacturers. So I think there is sourcing to sufficient to help establish who goes on this list and if we restrict to notable entries, this becomes a reasonable standalone list. Another alternative to deletion would be to merge this list into programmable logic controller at the end of the article. In any case, I don't see a compelling policy-based reason to delete this content. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to programmable logic controller as an WP:ATD. I think both articles would be improved from a merge, this is an unnecessary fork/split.   // Timothy :: talk  14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge useful content and redirect. No reason to pour content down the drain. jp×g 12:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No effective sources. scope_creep 13:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Knowledge (XXG) needs an end to unsourced content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "It's unsourced" is not an argument for deletion. With the exception of BLPs, sources do not have to be in an article for the article to be retained. They only have to exist. JPL, I've seen you doing this a lot; please stop making non-policy-based deletion arguments that indicate you - a very long-term editor - do not know or do not care about Knowledge (XXG) policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete unsourced page, and didn't find much else on Google except this other Knowledge (XXG) page "Maske Gruppen". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: please don't provide general edit summaries like "cleanup" and "copyedit" when it really should have said "removal of unsourced material" etc. Removal of paragraphs is in no way "copyediting". Furthermore, the unreferenced text can stay there for the remainder of this AFD, since it will be deleted anyway if the debate goes toward delete. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources, no real claim to notability. This would do better on its native language Knowledge (XXG), where it might even meet GNG. jp×g 12:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete: This original company is mentioned here but in the context of the merged Maske Gruppen company. I am not seeing evidence of specific notability. AllyD (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. The topic clearly does not deserve an independent article, but participants are split on an appropriate target. Will relist at RfD to make that determination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Per Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of minor characters in Peanuts (2nd nomination), this is a spin-off of sorts, biographing several of the canine minor characters in Peanuts. This is primary-sourced WP:ALLPLOT with little real-world significance of the dogs Olaf, Andy etc. So this belongs in the Peanuts Wikia or can be mentioned on Snoopy's page. Geschichte (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge with List of Peanuts characters: Unnecessary fork. Significantly trim and merge only sourced content.   // Timothy :: talk  11:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Wikia is a commercial rival for selling advertising and we're not here to promote that as the nomination suggests. Peanuts, Snoopy and his siblings is naturally a sprawling topic for which we would expect some splitting but deletion is not an appropriate measure per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." The current content seems fine but if you want some real-world input too then see here for a recent example. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment- I think we can do without accusing the nominator of shilling for Wikia. This misbehavior was the subject of an ANI thread not so long ago. Pinging @NinjaRobotPirate:, who offered to take appropriate action if it re-occurred. Reyk _YO! 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Davidson: can you clarify whether you're accusing Geschichte of shilling for Wikia or trying to promote that website? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The nomination says "So this belongs in the Peanuts Wikia". If the nomination introduces such a proposition, it seems quite appropriate to respond to it. My point is that this is not a valid reason to delete our page. For avoidance of doubt, I am not accusing the nominator of anything improper. I am not familiar with the editor Geschichte and do not doubt their good faith. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to Snoopy, which would probably be the better place to cover them than the general Peanuts Characters list. The vast majority of the information currently in this article is plot information that is either unsourced or using primary sources. The only one of the litter aside from Snoopy himself that has any kind of coverage is Spike (even the one source Andrew linked above is only talking about Spike, not the rest of them), and even then, there is no coverage that goes in-depth on him that could justify a separate article. When the vast amounts of unsourced plot information, which is 90 percent of the article, is cut out, the information on Snoopy's siblings could easily be covered on his own page. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to Snoopy per Rorshacma. The nom is frankly not wrong in that it's Wikia material. Clearly fails WP:GNG - I've never even heard of these characters, which is a far cry from Snoopy himself. For good reason - some of them aren't even canon._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not going to !vote due to my having large conflicts of interest with regards to Snoopy. I can say, however, that there are at least some sources out there that cover the siblings in general (including my own book, The Snoopy Treasures, which only for giving it some RS weight I'll note is a Benjamin Franklin Award winner - that's the Independent Book Publishers Association award.) Spike has a significant place within the strip itself during the 1980s and 1990s, and Belle, while having a surprisingly minor role in the strip itself, has a notable place in larger culture, as there have been a series of fashion exhibitions in which major designers designed outfits for her and Snoopy. Here is InStyle covering the New York Fashion Week display in 2017, Here's 2014 coverage in Women's Wear Daily noting that these shows go back to 1984, including displays at The Louvre and Los Angeles's Natural History Museum. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: I've added many references to the article, and trimmed the poor quality writing. Sources include: What Cartooning Really Is: The Major Interviews with Charles M. Schulz (2020), Charles M. Schulz: Conversations (2012), The Art and Making of Peanuts Animation: Celebrating Fifty Years of Television Specials (2012), and The Complete Peanuts Family Album (2017), all providing real-world information on production and reception of the characters (including two surprisingly negative quotes by Schulz on his own creations). I've also got a 1980 article from the Honolulu Advertiser on the introduction of Belle plush, a 1988 article from the Cincinnati Enquirer about a special featuring Spike, and a couple articles about the 1990 Snoopy/Belle fashion exhibition, including this article from the Wilmington News-Journal. I believe that together, these demonstrate notability for the characters. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Still, the best of the lost seems to be a WP:INTERVIEW in which this group of characters is mentioned in passing. That's scratching the barrel... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge per Rorshacma. The coverage here doesn't really address the topic in direct detail as required by the WP:GNG. But there is enough to be worth WP:PRESERVEing, and the main character list is still well under anything that would require multiple articles or lists. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect - This topic can easily be housed in its entirety in a paragraph in the character list. There is nothing to establish independent notability at this time. TTN (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_Peanuts_characters: Nothing here justifies having a stand alone article, coverage is trivial. Fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to Snoopy. The information easily fits there and is relevant. Dream Focus 14:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons cited by user:Andrew Davidson and User:Toughpigs Meets WP:GNG. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. Not the article or references it was when this AFD started. WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: With the sourced content that I've added, merging with List of Peanuts characters would not work. The entries on that list page are two to three sentences. I think that the two interview quotes from Schulz are good quality content; they would never fit in that chart. It would be possible to merge with the Snoopy article, although the sourced content would be a pretty big chunk of that page. Part of the problem there is that the Snoopy article is terribly undeveloped, and needs to be much richer :) — now that I've seen that, I plan to work on building up the Snoopy page with more references. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just toss the merchandise info and development info into Peanuts. "There is merchandise on the character" isn't particularly relevant in the scope of an individual character. The development of the comic is a better place to discuss the addition of characters if the individual characters lack anything worthwhile. The characters themselves just need two sentences of context. TTN (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You're essentially saying we should toss out all the sourced content, which is several paragraphs. I don't think that's how we're supposed to consider sourced content in an AfD. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"Toss" as in place into the parent franchise article, not toss as in throw away. The information is relevant to the development of the comic/franchise, but you have mostly primary development info as the core of the content and some trivial mentions based on merchandise. There's nothing that requires an in-depth article on the particulars of the characters' various appearances. The context they require is a brief summary on the character list. TTN (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I would also note the comment from User:NatGertler and endorse what he said, even though he chose not to !vote. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to Snoopy. Azuredivay (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Army of One (2020 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film, has not received significant coverage by reliable sources (just an article sharing the trailer, and another article listing the film as being sold at market), does not meet WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 10:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as there's not enough coverage to show that this meets WP:NFF. No objection to its restoration when/if it gets more coverage upon its release date. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete This film has not had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Just a random military army film. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 14:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Some very local articles about this athlete, with a best ranking of place 1332 (!) worldwide on the 400m. According to one of the articles, he nearly made the final of the Dutch indoor championships, and that's it. Miles away from actually meeting WP:NATH. Fram (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 10:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, nowhere near an accomplished or even skilled athlete. Geschichte (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete — doesn’t satisfy the appropriate SNG & doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Not competing at elite level and does not pass GNG either. SFB 17:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. He won gold at the NSK Indoor and NSK Teams, but NSK means Dutch Student Championship. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. It mentions his personal best as a claim to notability?? If I don't get an article, neither does this guy. jp×g 12:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. SNOW closing. A7 is prime reason EvergreenFir (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

There don't seem to be any reliable sources about him apart from his allmusic bio. Nothing in Google News, nothing useful in the first pages of Google hits. Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete — Borderline A7 eligible article for a 17 yr old non notable rapper who doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under A7, G11 and possibly G3. Exactly what has this guy even done? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If he hadn't had an allmusic bio, I would have, but usually these are somewhat indicative of notability. In this case, not so much apparently. Fram (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • In that case... A7 and G11. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete The only reliable source is the allmusic bio, and one good source is not enough. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear failure of notability guidelines. — Goszei (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. As per consensus and withdrawal by nominator (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 14:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Buffering the Vampire Slayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

What makes this podcast notable? Not a single source contains an in-depth, independent analysis of the program. The best it has going for it are a few mentions in listicles, the best one is The 50 Best Podcasts to Listen to Right Now from Time, but it is just a paragraph. I don't think that's enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: In my opinion, Time and Esquire with a paragraph and Junkee with two, each containing some (positive) analysis, should be enough to fulfill WP:GNG. Then there are also several shorter secondary sources which each give a bit of praise. So I think the article should be kept. Or to phrase it differently: What's the benefit of deletion for Knowledge (XXG)'s readers if this topic should be just below the (somewhat subjective) notability threshold which outweighs the loss of the article if it should be just above the threshold? Daranios (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with Daranios that the existing sources are sufficient for this page to meet notability criteria. Additionally, this podcast has been written about in academic sources. For example:
  • a PhD about the Female Gothic and feminist literary criticism,
  • a Master's thesis on fanpodcasts,
  • an article on Harry Potter re-read podcasts that describes Buffering the Vampire Slayer as "a great example of this genre" (p.370), and
  • a chapter in a book on urban fantasy.

These sources further bolster Buffering the Vampire Slayer's notability, even if they are not currently linked from the Knowledge (XXG) page. --Spartycat (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• • @Spartycat: Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:NOHARM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus: The argument above is based on coverage in secondary sources, including an academic one that has a number of pages with analysis about the subject. So it refers to the heart of WP:GNG and your statement that supposedly "Not a single source contains an in-depth, independent analysis of the program". Could you please let us know why the essay you pointed to should be at all relevant here? Thanks! (@Spartycat: Excuse me for jumping in, but I am really curious about this.) Daranios (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus:@Daranios: I'm also confused, my point did not have to do with the article being useful/useless or harmful/harmless, but related to concerns about notability. --Spartycat (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Withdraw. I have take a second look at the sources, and it did become apparent for some reason (maybe a typo in my search) I missed many good ones, which, as demonstrated above, do exist. Mea culpa :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus: Thanks for clarifying! --Spartycat (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Meets GNG. Plus, the nom has voted to withdraw the nomination. — Ad Meliora ∕_Contribs 17:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 14:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

IMDB mirror of a teenager who was voice actor of sidekick characters in a couple of tv episodes and tv movies 45 years ago. The main concern is then a lack of significant in-depth sources about Linda Ercoli. Geschichte (talk) 09:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete — subject of article doesn’t possess sufficient in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them to warrant an article. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete It is far past time that Knowledge (XXG) stopped being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - my search yields no reliable sources with non-trivial coverage of Ercoli, so she doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Based on my knowledge of the Peanuts franchise, it doesn't appear that two significant roles in notable films (the bare minimum to meet WP:ENT). Samsmachado (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The only source in the article is a government document and I was unable to find anything about the school in a WP:BEFORE except for a few name drops in school directories and a couple of articles about an employee who was arrested for rape. Which has nothing to do with the school. Let alone is any of it the in-depth coverage that would be needed for the article to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Schools are not inherently notable either. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete not sources that are secondary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Keep the US government should be a good source, and it's been mentioned in a couple academic articles: Should be enough to have an article on. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. Apart from the sources mentioned by SportingFlyer, there are several others. This 1999 book contains a paragraph discussing the school in some substantive detail. This academic paper, see pp 313-315 in the pdf file contains detailed in-depth analysis of the Portuguese language instruction program at the school and some discussion of the student body there. Overall, passes WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • As another example of detailed coverage, here is a link to a research study, published in an academic journal, evaluating the efficiency of science teaching methods at the Sifundzani High School.

Comment For whatever reason both of you seem to be ignoring the part in WP:GNG that about significant coverage that requires the source "addresses the topic directly and in detail." Because Sifundzani School is the topic here. Not "teaching methods." Which is what the sources you both claim pass "overall pass WP:GNG" are about. The only thing they contain are name drops. None of them address the school directly and detail. Not to mention the first "source" is a questionnaire about how interested the students were in lectures. In no way is a student questionnaire a reliable source for information on anything. Whatever the source. More importantly the second source provided by SportingFlyer, which again both of you claim makes this pass WP:GNG is about "The use of WhatsApp in the Certificate in Portuguese programme offered by the Institute of Distance Education of the University of Eswatini." Is this article about The University of Eswatini? No it's not.

Looking at Nsk92's supposedly "direct and in detail" sources, The book reference just says the they provide adequate services for boys. Which is hardly in-depth and is extremely trivial. According to Nsk92 page 313-315 of the second source, which is about the Portuguese language, covers the school directly and detail. It doesn't though. Taking a random paragraph out of page 313 it says "it obvious that or access that one face to the other only can be filtered through two sensory organs that receive unique forms of manifestation of conceptual movements of two motor organs and the results of these actions." Is any of that about the school, let alone is it discussing the school "directly and in detail? I'm pretty sure the answer is a solid no. The other source that was posted, Efficacy of teaching methods: an Evaluation by the Sifundzani High Learners, is more of the same. It's a student questioner, which again isn't a reliable source, that talks about their "views and suggestions of students about various aspects of the current Science Education" and again the topic of this article is not "science education." It's Sifundzani School. So, despite what SportingFlyer and Nsk92 claim this is not an "overall pass of WP:GNG" in any way shape or form, because none of the sources they have provided "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Which is explicitly required by WP:GNG. A few of them, like the one about the Portuguese language, doesn't even appear to address it indirectly or at all. At least not from what I could find. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Err, putting aside your other points for the moment, with respect to the pp 313-315 ref, you are looking at the wrong article in the pdf file I linked. The article I meant is "A brief history of the teaching and learning of Portuguese in the kingdom of Eswatini" on pp. 309-318 of the file (internal page numbering), or pp 318-327 in absolute page numbering. Please check again there. Nsk92 (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. We are here to build an encyclopedia not to nitpick. ClemRutter (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is a discussion and analyzing the sources is sometimes a part of that. If you find people doing the AfD process "nitpicking" or otherwise offensive, maybe find another corner of Knowledge (XXG) to contribute to. Or at least don't contribute to my AfDs anymore. Since sometimes discussions happen in them, not just by me, and I don't really appreciate people who attempt to stifle said conversations. I rather the process be done fairly and thoroughly. Which sometimes takes discussion and following the guidelines isn't "nitpicking." Also, AfDs aren't to "build an encyclopedia." They are to decide if articles should be deleted. Period. Again, if you have a problem with that then feel free to contribute to something else. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• No, AfDs are part and parcel of building an encyclopedia. Also you do not WP:OWN AfDs - you are not allowed to tell someone "don't comment on my AfDs". Your entire comment is not in keeping with the civility policy as well, please moderate things in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your up in arms about, but AfDs being part and parcel of building an encyclopedia was exactly my point. Whereas, from this and other AfDs I've seen ClemRutter participate in it seem as though they think that they are or that they should be done at all. As far as my comment supposedly being "uncivil", There is nothing "civil" about calling someone's analysis of sources nitpicking and ClemRutter has made similarly negative, dismisses, or otherwise not contructive comments in my other AfDs. AfDs are a discussion, being critical of said discussion is not a civil thing to do and is disruptive to the normal AfD process (which is contigent on it), and the AfD guidelines state that people are disruptive in AfDs can be called out for it. So, there is nothing wrong with saying "if your unwilling to have constructive discussions in my AfDs or are againat them, then please participate in someone elses." Obviously, people should either be for discussing things, or not participate in said discussions if they find them distressing or otherwise bad as ClemRutter seems to. That has nothing to do with ownership. Its just common sense. Unless you think its OK for someone to participate in particular AfDs that they find offensive or otherwise don't like purely to be critical of them and the participents. Adamant1 (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 _Work 19:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Iceland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced article on a non notable aspect of the presidency. Fram (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete, it is not demonstrated that this is non-trivial. Geschichte (talk) 09:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If there were any sources, I would suggest merging it with the list of presidents in the article President of Iceland. So far I haven't found any sources regarding this. The official site of the Goverment of Iceland as information about the official coat of arms but says nothing of personal coats of arms of the Presidents. Alvaldi (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Trivial Hunter 13:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete There are no references and I've never heard of an Icelander having arms so this is clearly is not WP:NOTABLE. 1 median pageview per day over the last year. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. If the coats-of-arms are notable, they are notable because of the individuals they belong to, not because those individuals happen to have held the same office. So should be mentioned in the notable individuals articles, and not spuriously lumped together. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Armorial of Presidents of Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced article on a non notable aspect of these presidents / the presidency. Fram (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Can you clarify in what sense this is non-notable? Surely the subject matter, namely each of the coats of arms individually, is demonstrably notable, so is the non-notability in the listing of them together? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that individual coat of arms are notable either, but that's a separate discussion. But if they are notable, they are notable for the person they belong to, and should be included in their article as a short paragraph. But this AfD is indeed for the grouping, the combination of two separate topics into one list. One could make lists of presidents of finland based on hundreds of characteristics, and some of them would be acceptable (political affiliation or so), some would be instantly dismissed as rdiculous ("by number of vowels in their name"), and some could be notable if they have been discussed, as a group, by reliable sources. As an example, we have List of presidents of the United States with facial hair, which seems ridiculous, and has been nominated for deletion 5 times; but it is kept, because there are serious sources actually discussing this topic. If the same can be found for this list of armorials, then it should be kept as well. Fram (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I note that several of these AfDs have been put forward. Is there any merit in combining them? Presumably whatever arguments there are would apply to all/most of them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The arguments to delete them are identical; but it may turn out that while there are e.g. no sources for Finland, there are sources for some of the others. I doubt that there will be a common good source for all of them. Fram (talk) 09:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Doesn't this contradict your previous point? If the concept (of coats of arms of heads of state) is unacceptable, then wouldn't that be true for every such listing, regardless of whether or not supported by references? Or are you talking about sources specifically discussing them as a group, rather than individually? (Mainly asking because there are sources in the Finnish wiki article which could be imported, but they may be citing coats of arms individually, and not collectively.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, I mean sources discussing the group topic. If you would have e.g. some books or chapters discussing the armorials of these presidents together, then it would show that this topic was indeed notable. If on the other hand you have a book discussing armorials of Finnish people, and these are included but not really grouped or discussed specifically, then it doesn't show notability for the list. Fram (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment My gut thinks this encyclopaedic, if it can be properly sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Not many Finnish have arms. This list has 1 median daily pageview over the last year and just isn't useful and fails WP:NOTABLE. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per 122.60.173.107, who has summed up well. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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

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