Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 15	February 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salil Singhal

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

references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being rich, receiving awards and representing an organisation doesn't establish nobility. RationalPuff (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Hulatam (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep has some major wp:rs economic times, business today. Article is written poorly needs rewriting.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The account was created shortly before adding this vote. RationalPuff (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment: @RationalPuff:, has some reliable sources like economic times, bloomberg,search over google would demonstrate more sources. It can be edited and improved. Per wp:atd if it can be edited it shouldn’t be deleted. this is not a SPA. ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 12:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. The sources are woeful hence the delete. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naman Y. Goyal

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

Do not show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:RS Timberlack (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft delete since it survived its first AfD. Nom has been blocked as a sock anyway, so one relist for good-faith commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep all the major references are IMDB, and can not be considered as reliable, maybe someone can try to add more sources and re write it properly.ImNotAnEntrepreneur (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a realible source and we need to stop building articles on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete I couldnt find anything to establish notability under WP:GNG, or WP:NCREATIVE. IMDb is not a realible source and we need to stop building articles on it. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Goel (lawyer)

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with WP:CORPDEPTH and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since nom has been sock-blocked, relist for good-faith comments instead of soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notwithstanding the technical questionability of the nom. Besides failing WP:GNG - the subject hasn't done anything that has garnered signficiant coverage - he is completely non-notable as a lawyer per my long-standing standards. I don't see that any of the awards are major. Lawyers do lots of things that get them an award or recognition. I have certificates and awards from the Sierra Club and local bar associations, and while I treasure them in my portfolios, they do not make me notable, either. This appears to be a run of the mill lawyer. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Easily meet notability requirements as the principal officer in multiple national attorney organizations that are substantiated by references already in article and probably bad-faith nomination. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adish Aggarwala

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

Do not show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Timberlack (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator has been blocked as a UPE sock. Blablubbs|talk 20:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since nom has been sock-blocked, relist for good-faith comments instead of soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Invader (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation contains only the primary target and a link to Hercules (wrestler). Hatnotes at those two pages already accomplish disambiguation. See also Talk:Super Invader#Requested move 17 November 2020. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TWODABS and obvious primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as an unnecessary disambiguator whose function can be accomplished with hatnotes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TWODABS. IceWelder [✉] 08:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Bellerby

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER (Sergeant with no significant awards) and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Second aerial victory by Manfred von Richthofen is pure WP:1E. Can be redirected to List of victories of Manfred von Richthofen Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because you are killed by a notable person in the course of war does not make you notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Dirleton

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

I have only rudimentary knowledge of how British nobility is addressed, but this doesn't seem right. I don't think titles are shortened in this manner. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous respectable sources which refer to a Lord Dirleton such as the DNB. As there has been more than one holder of the title, a dab page seems appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffeo (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page has only the primary term (a redirect to Diffeomorphism) plus one other link, to Diffeo (company). The only other possible link I can find is Diffeology, though that seems different enough to me that it is not really ambiguous. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I created this disambiguation page and concur that it should be deleted. Cnilep, perhaps this is sufficient to close this discussion and mark it for deletion? jrf (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Correction... I was thinking this should be a WP:G14, but I now think this should be *kept*. I've now read the article on diffeology, and found diffeomorphometry and more interestingly found the diffeomorphism anomaly page that redirects to the gravitational anomaly page, which is the context within which I first heard the truncation of diffeomorphism to just "diffeo." These are all quite different things, such that a person speaking in one of these contexts might naturally shorten to "diffeo" without fear of ambiguity in context. I think disambiguation pages are intended for exactly this purpose, so I reverse my opinion -- I think this should be kept. Also, I've updated this page to list these additional meanings. jrf (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the things that Jrf added are called diffeo (as opposed to having that as part of their name), then the page should indeed be kept. I don't know enough about mathematics or physics to determine whether that is the case. In any case, thank you, Jrf, for your additions and your comments here. Cnilep (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that jrf is a co-founder of Diffeo the company, according to his user page, and while I thank him for making it clear there, I think it would have been proper under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to disclose this explicitly when editing related pages and participating in deletion discussions. But anyway, I don't mean this as a personal attack or to take away from the discussion of the merits.) I agree with Cnilep that, unlike for "diffeomorphism", it's unclear whether sources actually refer to "diffeology" or any of the other items using the standalone term "diffeo". Are there sources to support that? Adumbrativus (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cnilep, thank you for pointing that out. I should have made that more clear in this discussion instead of expecting people to open my user page. I'd like to note that while there is an apparent CoI in my editing pages related to the word "diffeo" (and an apparent CoI is often indistinguishable to an actual CoI), my primary interest here is about language. I think disambiguation pages are one of the coolest parts of Wikipedia, because they address the experience of learning by removing ambiguity---hence my further comment below. jrf (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Googling suggests that "diffeo" is an occasionally-used abbreviation for "diffeomorphism" (as here, though not mentioned in the target article), but that probably the company is the primary topic and should be moved to the base title (the hatnote already there on the company page does what's needed). No need for a dab page either way. PamD 14:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the CoI discussion above, I'd like to suggest there is a pedagogical reason to consider having the title "Diffeo" point at the disambiguation page itself (bullet points below). I defer to more experienced Wikipedians on best approach. jrf (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The etymology of the word "diffeomorphism" is a combination of three roots: "differentiable" (sufficiently smooth, etc), "homeo" (opposite of hetero), and "morphism" (a transformation), so it means, essentially "a smooth transformation that brings a thing back to itself." With that grounding in hand, it's clear that it is exceedingly general. The concept is useful in extremely diverse technical settings, i.e. research communities whose members might never interact. (While there are examples of diffeomorphisms that are not homeomorphisms, that's a technicality.)
- It is very natural to clip diffeomorphism or diffeomorphic to just diffeo. From OED, an early, possibly the first use of the word diffeomorphic was also clipped to diffeo: 1953 W. Ambrose & I. M. Singer in Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 75 428 "We use the word ‘diffeo’ for a 1:1 differentiable mapping of one manifold onto another whose inverse is also differentiable and call the manifolds diffemorphic [sic]." Hilarious that they (accidentally) dropped the "o" in diffeomorphic in that sentence, but reinserted it later in that paper.
- Clipping to diffeo is especially useful when speaking. A lecturer talking about smooth transformations that bring a thing back to itself can side-step the tongue-twister of saying diffeomorphism over and over by replacing it with the word diffeo.
- This organically produces the need for disambiguation, because a discussion about gravity or sets or computational anatomy or dynamical systems might all use the word "diffeo" with large presumed context. When a novice joins such a conversation, and they encounter this unknown word "diffeo," we (as Wikipedians) hope that they can efficiently discover the full article about that specialized use of the word.
- Here are examples of online discussions and lecture presentations that truncate to "diffeo." Most of these also spell out the word diffeomorphism, so these are just indicative of what might occur in a verbal discussion: diffeo in lecture about sets, diffeo in discussion about computational anatomy, diffeo in lecture about gravity. Easy to find more by googling for ["diffeo" "gravity"] or ["diffeo" "anatomy"] etc jrf (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm satisfied that there are really only two topics, and the current arrangement of a primary redirect is fine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:2DABS. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The hatnote on the company page will be enough to get readers to the right place (as long as it stays there). Ebony Jackson (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Service Coordination

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

While they undoubtedly do good work, I can find no evidence that this spinoff of The Arc of Frederick County is notable. Relevant hits (a challenge, due to name and for the same reason I don't think this is good redirect target) limited to job placements and other minor mentions. Nothing significant, in depth or independent. StarM 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. StarM 03:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete due to lack of proper sources, however thismay just be due to the difficult to search name. Alternatively Merge back into The Arc of Frederick County which is currently a very short stub. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In the absence of any evidence it was ever a town, but ping for undelete if that changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dow, California

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

An interesting exercise in failed photointerpretation going on here, as the topos initially show a siding with a large tank and some other industrial buildings which gets replaced, on the maps at any rate, by a bunch of buildings, many of which are H-shaped. More recent, higher-resolution images reveal them to be stacks of pipe on the grounds of the Westar logistics facility which has taken over the area. I have to presume that "Dow" meant the chemical company, but at any rate the evidence is that this was always a rail/industrial site. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This result on Google Maps shows a community. And there are mulitple sidings and tailings ponds. So, not sure. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not show a "community". First of all, the larger area is an industrial zone, not a town. Second, going back historically, Dow itself starts out as a small area right next to the tracks at the northeast corner of the present developed area; I do not have any clear indication that anyone ever thought of the larger area as "Dow". Mangoe (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Strong Delete Yet another useless town stub Blubabluba9990 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Batherson

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

No major roles, no major competitions won--the highest rank seems to be "finalist" in a talent show. Even 10 years ago, I'm a little puzzled that this wasn't spotted. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems to have had many minor roles. Nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not at all close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undercover Utopia

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

The first title from this imprint went on to become a notable series. There's no evidence the imprint is notable, and with neither the TV show nor their founders' articles mentioning it other than in passing as co-founders, there's no obvious redirect. The production house has no article and with only five titles there's no evidence it's notable enough to build an article to redirect this to. StarM 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional and poorly referenced. No inherent notability, only by association. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Boldly closing speedily per WP:SNOW, consensus for deletion is extremely unlikely to develop. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rees (airman)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Being the first airman killed by Manfred von Richthofen doesn't make you notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also delete Herbert Bellerby, the third victim (and second victory). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of victories of Manfred von Richthofen, WP:1E and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. No compliance with WP:Before. Article is well developed. And too big to be comfortably merged in the list List of victories of Manfred von Richthofen. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a brief perusal, most of the references are about the Red Baron. The ones about Rees are either not about him specifically or insubstantial. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POINT. This article has been worked on by numerous editors to the point that it has appeared on the main page. It is therefore generally acceptable as an adornment to the encyclopedia per our policy WP:IAR. The nomination is based on WP:SOLDIER but that is an essay and so has no official standing and the current RfC demonstrates that there's no consensus for it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is clearly based on GNG also, not just SOLDIER. I do not understand your POINT argument, what are you trying to say? Mztourist (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POINT is the converse of IAR – unproductive activity to prove or score a point. For example, Mztourist recently went through my contributions and twice nominated the Dog & Bull for deletion. They failed and the article recently adorned the main page too. It was read there by thousands of people who had no complaints. See also vexatious litigation.

As for GNG, the subject clearly passes it as it would not have gotten through AfC and DYK otherwise.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Rees (British soldier) Discussion at DYK 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson I am asking you what you are saying is POINT about this AFD? POINTy is you and your friends putting up AFD pages for DYK and then holding that up as a sign that the page shouldn't be deleted despite a lack of SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No virtue in that argument.

The two of you have a repeated failure at WP:AFD, flouting WP:Before, and the articles are developed with sources you should have foundwith due diligence. These go on to successful DYK nominations and are on the front page. This state of facts only proves how misguided these AFDs are.

It's not about you. It is about the subject, the sources (including those that are out there, even if not cited) and the article as it develops.

The prosecution rests. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What repeated failure are you referring to? Poorly sourced pages are put up for AFD, debated and a consensus reached or not. Andrew Davidson says that this is a POINTy AFD and I am asking him what is POINTy about it and am yet to receive a credible answer. As far as your "prosecution" goes you haven't proven anything other than that you will Keep any page no matter how weak and irrelevant the sourcing is. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An essay is not even close to policy. It goes policy->guideline->consensus-by-common-usage->essay. Essay is the last/weakest type of consensus. The reason is anyone (or a few people) can create an essay that says whatever. Also, I would like to see that discussion you refer to, most of the time they are not so clearly resolved and/or tend to be dominated by a handful of people. -- GreenC 17:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nom cited SOLDIER and GNG. If they didn't cite SOLDIER someone would doubtless raise it and as the nom notes below it still represents MilHist consensus at least until the discussion: [1] closes. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is rich. Noms are citing SOLDIER in dozens or hundreds of AfDs while at the same time there is a discussion to deprecate SOLDIER, with most !oting to kill it. -- GreenC 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So? Both the nom and I acknowledge the discussion regarding SOLDIER, which is why the nom also mentioned GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Andrew Davidson and 7&6=thirteen are clearly engaged in a witch hunt to try and point out faults with my arguments on almost every single AFD I've filed in the past month or so. I remind them; WP:SOLDIER is a consensus that was established by the military history wikiproject. It may not be official policy, but it's the closest you can get to it. If it is deleted, I would understand their arguments, but it hasn't been deleted. :::::Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lettler This is not a "witch hunt." If you insist, then stop being a witch and doing silly AFDs.

You apparently are a slow learner, at least as to what AFD is about. It should not be about establishing your body count. If it hurts when you do this, don't do it anymore.

N.b., I was at this article FIRST. I built it up, and got a DYK. Many years ago. You did not have this account at the time; so as far as I know, you were not even a blip on my radar then.

Stop following me. WP:Stalking. WP:Pot. You caused the problem, and now want to blame me. Chutzpah.

You came to me, not the other way around. So stop with the sanctimonious bullshit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctimonious? That's rich coming from you who wrote this: [2] Mztourist (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You folks nominated scores of articles for deletion all at once. You want to wear that cloak? Go for it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes GNG as was determined by an earlier AfD and DYK. This AfD appears to be part of a larger ongoing war, another smoking battlefield. There is no place to merge without creating an over-WEIGHT problem in the target article. Keep per WP:PRESERVE (policy). -- GreenC 16:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "earlier AFD"? Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fine, well constructed, well documented, easy to read and look at article. It should stay. Carptrash (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Common sense and good editorial judgment intrudes into this discussion. Thank you User:Carptrash. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG above, and also per WP:ANYBIO, Rees "received [...] well-known and significant award[s]" that received news coverage, including BBC News, when they were sold at auction. From BBC News: "Such a group of medals, although hard-earned, would normally be regarded as somewhat commonplace, but the facts behind these humble medals make them a very special item," says Welsh antiques dealer Robert Pugh." Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "well-known and significant award[s]"? he received a set of very ordinary medals that only have any significance because of his WP:1E of being von Richthofen's first kill. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are "significant" because the BBC says they are ("very special item"). That you disagree with the BBC is a matter of your personal opinion, but objectively we report what sources say, in this case an assertion of notability. -- GreenC 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you mean "Welsh antiques dealer Robert Pugh" says they are a "very special item" as reported by the BBC? See the difference? As I said earlier, the awards themselves are not significant, their only significance is the WP:1E association with von Richthofen. Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant "reported by BBC News," which is also in-depth reporting about Rees in December 1999, in addition to helping make his medals "well known," per WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr you and GreenC are completely perverting #1 of ANYBIO here. #1 states "a well-known and significant award or honor", i.e. a VC, MoH etc., Rees's awards are stated in the BBC report to be "somewhat commonplace" so they absolutely fail #1. The fact that the medals have acquired some value/collectability because of their association with von Richthofen does not somehow elevate them to satisfying #1. Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you may disagree but don't call my position "perverted", are you perverted? Second, I never cited ANYBIO, I said GNG and this is "significant" coverage. Significant because it demonstrates notability asserted by the source in three words ("very special item"). -- GreenC 15:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is temporally relative; this airman was always notable for his distinguished career, apart being the Red Baron's first victim and the historical significance of his medals; he is still notable now. Many "notables" of today's Wikipedia will not be remembered in ten years' time, let alone 100+. Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "distinguished career"? There's nothing remotely out of the ordinary in Tom Rees (airman)#Military career. No significant patrols, no victories, nothing. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right, Rees had no notability at the time of his death and only later became known for the retrospective WP:1E of being von Richthofen's first kill.Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the point. Does not fail WP:SOLDIER

It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable (conversely, a person who meets these criteria is not necessarily notable, if no significant coverage can be found); ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources.

nor does it fail WP:GNG, so the two reasons for deletion fail.Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per available references. Meets WP:GNG. Timberlack (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rees is way more notable that many of the minor sports and entertainment personalities cluttering up Wikipedia who will be forgotten in a couple of decades.Bermicourt (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to the respective surname pages.

Redirect Senator Demuzio to Demuzio
Redirect Senator Hunhoff to Hunhoff
Redirect Senator Marovitz to Marovitz
Redirect Senator Orechio to Orechio
Redirect Senator Stadelman to Stadelman Sandstein 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senators pages

Same issue as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senator Bordallo. Basically, these are just the standard name pages (Demuzio, etc.) with the "Senator"s, but since in these cases everyone in these pages is already a senator, it's just a clone of content, and not additionally helpful in any way. --Quiz shows 02:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --Quiz shows 02:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an argument to redirect to their respective surname pages, which would also match the result of the aforementioned precedent. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What about the rest of the entries in Category:Title and name disambiguation pages? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What about them? Most don't have 100% overlap with the surname pages, so would be poor(er) candidates for redirection. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I only nominated the ones that are 100% overlap with a surname page, like Tavix says. Some of the ones that don't overlap are still probably redundant since they are split from very small pages, I looked briefly now, and Gudger, Motlow, Niblack, Proudfit all have Senator pages that aren't really necessary in my opinion. The ones for common names are not so bad. --Quiz shows 04:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Missed that. Redirect to their respective surname pages per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 05:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Rouff

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

I cannot find any evidence he's notable for his marketing/comms work, nor as an author. There are event listings for author talks/signings, but the only in depth pieces I've found are interviews/blurbs so they don't work. Mollifiednow did some updating and source hunting late last year but was similarly unable to take this article further. StarM 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - how surprising. A public relations guru has an entirely undue article on Wikipedia. Fails WP:ANYBIO. 174.254.192.137 (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's written some articles for magazines and self-published a book. Not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person in the advertising industry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google search turned up reliable sources, which I have added to the article. A search also found that the subject has written three books, two of which were released by traditional publishing houses, he won a state award, and he contributed to a fourth book, a collection of short stories co-written with authors in the US and UK. The subject and his books have been featured in multiple articles, including in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and he regularly appears on Nevada public radio. I cleaned up the article, removed puffery, and added content with reliable sources to show notability. Clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the coverage added is either local to him or an interview or both, so it fails WP:N, which demands sources that are independent (interviews fail here) and which indicate interest from the world at large (local-only sources fail here). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Amoah (businessman)

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

I do not see the basis of notability here. Many small newspaper items, but nothing substantial or comprehensive--and based on the reported accomplishments, no reason why there ought to be. Owner of various non-notable business, and a bureaucrat in the sports industry. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found some sources at Google Books, among others "Political Handbook of the World 2005-2006" is referring to him on page 446, was a Party leader in Ghana. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @CommanderWaterford: Is that the same person? There seem to be lots of Kofi Amoahs out there based off my WP:BEFORE. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰*** 17:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle, sorry for the late reply, missed the first ping. A cite in the book at page 446 https://books.google.es/books?id=u3fFTiEMrGkC&q=%22Kofi+Amoah%22+businessman+-wikipedia&dq=%22Kofi+Amoah%22+businessman+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix9dCHy6vvAhW1aRUIHRdKBeEQ6AEwBHoECAkQAg refers to a Kofi Amoah who returned 1992 from the US and is a Leader of the GDRP Party. Is he definitely the same person? Good question. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kofi Amoah is notable in Ghana. Sources are reliable, and most are big news agencies in Ghana. Kofi Amoah was appointed in 2018 by FIFA to be president of the Ghana Football Association Normalization committee when the then President was suspended by FIFA. Selorm18 16:21, 1 March 2021
Delete per nom. If the subject is notable mainly due to Amoah being the head of the Normalization Committee of the Ghana Football Association, then this football body would have to be notable in the first place, but it is not apparent to me that it is notable (and it doesn't have it's own article) — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The football body is notable and has it's own article.Selorm18 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need a bit of clarification/assessment of the sources CommanderWaterford found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 20:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I note that we almost always delete articles about sports managers absent significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Deposit, No Return (2004 film)

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

Delete No reliable sources. Article sourced to IMDB and one other source which the page no longer exists. Not a single indication of notability from secondary sources other than IMDB. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. --ConnickyCock^{Discuss with Connicky} 00:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find where there's coverage enough to justify it meeting NFILM. To be honest, most short films have a big struggle meeting notability guidelines and this is no exception. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM.Donaldd23 (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no apparent coverage, no notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DSMN8

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

I cannot see ref. 1, but ref 2 is a general article barely mentioning the company, ref . 3 is a mere mention on an official lis tto show existence, and ref 4 is another general article, including quotes from this company along with the discussion of much else. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, the RS's only mention the subject incidentally (ChicTrib literally in a single sentence), and the Digiday piece (which I don't know whether it's RS or not) is on TikTok, not on the article subject. May be a case of too soon, but as it stands, fails notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion not a Yellow Pages. None of the references meet NCORP requirements for establishing notability. The FT piece mentions this company, in passing, in a much larger piece about employees becoming social media "influencers" for the company they work for. It is neither in-depth nor significant, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Chicago Tribune piece is a similar story to the FT piece and is also only a mention-in-passing for this company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH for the same reasons. Finally, yes, the Digiday article is covering the same topic - "employee influencers" - and the information on the company is provided by the marketing manager, fails WP:ORGIND. The article also provides no in-depth nor significant information/analysis/opinion on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Most other articles I can find are announcements, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wide agreement here that GNG is met. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Beightol

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

Not my field at all, but I thought the requirement for notabiltiy as a coach did not extend to assistant coaches. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG, did you search for sources on Beightol before nominating this article for deletion? Newspapers.com alone shows 9,703 results for his name, including many in headlines. And even leaving aside his time as an assistant coach, he spent a season as head coach of the Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football team, which is D-I. Why is this not enough to establish notability as someone who "[s]erved as a full-time (as opposed to interim) head coach for NCAA division I/University Division football"? --Usernameunique (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I leave it to other people's judgment. Myself,I think notability in sports does or at least ought to require both the GNG and the SNG, and I also disagree that a nominal period of participation at the highest level is sufficient., especially if it's apparently a temporary position. I know others may disagree, as people tend to disagree on everything involving most of the SNGs. In this area, I make no judgments myself, but justpropose discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, that appears to be a clear violation of WP:BEFORE, which instructs that "[p]rior to nominating article(s) for deletion," you should "[s]earch for additional sources, if the main concern is notability." And your view that sports-related notability "ought to require both the GNG and the SNG" is squarely at odds with policy, which states that "A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) ..., or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." In any event, it seems clear that Beightol:

Meets the general notability guidelines (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject)
Meets the subject-specific notability guidelines for college football coaches (served as a full-time head coach for a D-I program)

Equally, the notability guideline for professional football coaches simply "does not apply to assistant coaches or coaching assistants"; that hardly means that someone who has been an assistant professional football coach cannot demonstrate notability by other means, as Beightol clearly has. --02:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep per Usernameunique. Seems to be enough to meet WP:GNG. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to easily pass GNG. For example: "Lou Holtz's loss is LaTech's gain" from The Shreveport Times, "Larry Beightol: New Guy on the Blockers" from The Los Angeles Times, "Up Front, the Pressure Is on the Jets' Linemen. Just Listen to Their Coach." from The New York Times. Also passes the SNG WP:NCOLLATH #5, as he was head coach for Louisiana Tech in 1979. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH #5, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is 9,703 results at newspapers.com for his name then he definitely passes WP:GNG. Plus, he was a head coach for a season. BeanieFan11 (talk | contribs) 20:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per available references, passes GNG. Timberlack (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockstrike. Blablubbs|talk 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we typically find that college head football coaches pass WP:GNG and this one seems to be no exception.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep comfortably passes GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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