Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 13 December 15 >

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. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhakar Thokal

[edit]
Prabhakar Thokal (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 cartoonist/creative professional. Fails WP:GNG Palmsandbeaches (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Whitson

[edit]
Chad Whitson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same reason as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jansen Visconti. There should be no reason that his simply being a baseball umpire, in and of itself, should be more wiki worthy than an ambassador. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jansen Visconti

[edit]
Jansen Visconti (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 was deproded because “ full time MLB umpires are presumed notable according to BASE/N”. My argument is why, when an article is so short that all it says is John Smith is an ambassador from Country X to Country Y, and it gets deleted with the reasoning that ambassadors are not inherently notable. Have we gotten so anti-intellectual and so anti-global that a baseball referee who had been on the job for a few weeks or months is more wiki worthy than an. Ambassador who might have decades of experience? It doesn’t make sense to me. I want someone to explain to me, in a way I can understand, why this guy is notable but an ambassador isn’t. ThurstonMitchell (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Ford

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hester Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Substantively the same as was AfDed in July with the exception of September 1 being declared in her honor (source 9). Still no evidence she meets notability guidelines as also discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Longevity#Hester_Ford. Was tagged G4, which the creator removed. Bringing here for discussion and if deleted, suggest protection of the redlink/redirect. StarM 23:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User was indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User was indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just living longer than everyone else who was born at the same time as you with good documentation is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my WP:NOPAGE reasoning in the first AfD, which resulted in deletion. Being the "oldest x" is not notable either, and nothing substantive has changed with her lack of notability since the first AfD. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pinging editors who participated in the first AfD less then five months ago (who haven't participated yet): @DerbyCountyinNZ, @TFBCT1, @--Devokewater, @Lockley. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typical longevity fanfluff. No substantial improvement over previously deleted article. Social media hits are no indication of actual notability. Nothing more than a minor local celebrity so far therefore fails GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prior stand alone articles for Gertrude Baines, Dina Manfredini, and Gertrude Weaver who were oldest Americans and world’s oldest people have all been deleted for lack of notability. Hester Ford is the 6th oldest living person and certainly has less notability then the aforementioned.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G4 and only G4. No prejudice against recreation if she becomes oldest in the world, as the articles would no longer be "substantially identical." schetm (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but add back if she reaches 116 and makes it into the top 3 Currently Hester Ford is not even in the top 5 of oldest currently living people in the world and is only in the early part of being 115 still. My suggestion would be to take down Hester Ford for now, but then if she makes 116 and gets to where she is in the top 3 for oldest currently living person in the world add a new page for her provided some good, reliable sources come out about her giving good longevity oriented information. JasonPhelps (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amenu Moro

[edit]
Amenu Moro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Neither the first nor second tier of Zambia is fully professional and I don't believe that Lazio Babies were playing in the top tier of Ghana at any point. I'm not finding any coverage that suggests he could pass GNG. Spiderone 22:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atli Hrafn Andrason

[edit]
Atli Hrafn Andrason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No apperances for senior Fulham. Previously deleted by PROD. BlameRuiner (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suha N. Kayum

[edit]
Suha N. Kayum (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 as an academic. Does not pass GNG, she was briefly quoted a couple of times as an Aramco analyst/scientist. Chuka Chieftalk 21:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reluctantly. The two times the subject name came up in publications were both single quotes in the context of articles on the subject's employer. Both are also essentially the same statement "Aramco builds oil fields to last for centuries." I was only able to find fourteen papers or patents and not any with citations so PROF1 seems unlikely. The awards mentioned in the article are either for service to a scientific society, rather than in recognition of accomplishment, or an award from a trade show organizer. As a result, PROF2 also seems unlikely. PROF3-8 wouldn't apply in this case. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. G3/G5 by Liz. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayushman

[edit]
Ayushman (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, wrong external link, all references are out of service, only one ESPN crick info source is there available on infobox which is also wrong with data on infobox and article, in short falls WP:NCRIC. -- Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Pratyush.shrivastava (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I strongly recommend we WP:SALT this one as well Spiderone 22:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tasnim Mir

[edit]
Tasnim Mir (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 badminton player, fails WP:NBAD. Success at [1] U15 U17 & U19 level isn't a criterion of notability. As many of my previously created articles also deleted for the same reason. Also, a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Zoglophie Write? 18:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of these comments should be noted from previous similar archives:
  1. By Johnpacklambert [2]
  2. By Less Unless [3]
    --Zoglophie Write? 06:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoglophie Write? 18:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zoglophie Write? 18:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zoglophie Write? 18:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoglophie Write? 18:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impostor (Among Us)

[edit]
Impostor (Among Us) (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:NOPAGE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Per WP:2, this information should be included in (and essentially already is) the main article, Among Us. SWinxy (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crewmate (Among Us)

[edit]
Crewmate (Among Us) (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:NOPAGE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Per WP:2, this information should be included in (and essentially already is) the main article, Among Us. SWinxy (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SWinxy (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great Yarmouth and District Football League

[edit]
Great Yarmouth and District Football League (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 league that exists outside the English league system although English football league system has it down as being at the 17th level. In any case, it doesn't have inherent notability so needs to pass WP:GNG. The article is currently only listed to primary sources. A British newspaper search shows that the fixtures, results and league tables were published in the Yarmouth Independent on occasion but I couldn't see anything more. This appears to be the website for the league as far as I can see. ProQuest turned up this and this, both of which are just adverts in the local paper asking for more clubs to join. I found nothing worth mentioning in a search of Google News and DuckDuckGo. Spiderone 18:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing early due to obvious consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dreams

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Black Dreams (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 could find no indication of notability under WP:NSONG or GNG including no reviews that would help to establish notability. Minimal mentions of this album in my English and German searches beyond it exists. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Testicle

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Flying Testicle (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 GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another stub article about a non-notable band, this time about a noise music supergroup. Even though it had notable members such as the master of noise, Merzbow himself, the sourcing is beyond abysmal - Discogs and Musicbrainz still don't establish notability. They don't have an article on jpwiki either. When I searched for their albums, I only found the standard unreliable sites. By the way, this is the second nomination, as this article survived an AfD back in 2014 when it was closed as "no consensus" - it was basically kept just because the band had notable members. They sure did, but the sourcing is dreadful and it hasn't been changed ever since. Sourcing is the heart and soul of WP, basically. This can safely be included in any of the members' articles, but please, someone tell me, why do we need stubs like this which merely state that the band has existed and they were active at some point? That is the job of a database, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a database. That's why I always cringe when I see unreliably sourced (or not even sourced whatsoever) stubs which merely announce the subject exists. Not just about bands, about anything. (I have been told at past AfDs that the "dark ages" of Wikipedia was in the 2000s, when lots of stubs were written, masquerading as articles, that merely announced the subject's existence. This was written in 2007. Since WP has lots and lots of articles, these tend to be forgotten, so that's why they survive for too long.) So, to the point: non-notable band. Btw, I love the name too. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Star7924:: Well, it doesn't fail every notability test, because at least it had notable members. But the sourcing is abysmal and I couldn't find anything reliable. Like I said, this can be included in any of the members' articles, and the title can stay as a redirect. But that's it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Flying Testicle is already listed at the discography for workaholic Masami Akita, better known as Merzbow, who has 346 of his own albums, a few dozen collaborative albums, and numerous side projects. Many get little media coverage but are worthy of being listed in his history for encyclopedic purposes. Individual articles are rarely merited, including this one for Flying Testicle. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujib Borsho FIFA International Football Series

[edit]
Mujib Borsho FIFA International Football Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my view, this one-off pair of friendly matches does not warrant a stand-alone article. From this discussion as well as this and this one, we set the bar quite high for notability on football matches when it comes to whether they need their own article or not. This isn't a final and no records were broken. The content is already covered in Bangladesh national football team results (2020–present) and Nepal national football team results which is sufficient in my view. Spiderone 16:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Thanks everyone! Missvain (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Langdon Bosarge

[edit]
Langdon Bosarge (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:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loving, Kentucky

[edit]
Loving, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Rennick's index calls it a locale (geography), but doesn't say anything else about it. Newspapers.com is only bringing up last names for me, while the only Gbooks hit was for a Loving Graveyard, giving directions that seem to lead to the site of the subject of this article. Topos show one home with a graveyard across the road and a church down the road after the graveyard. There's a little more development today, but not a whole lot. I may be wrong, but this seems to be more of an informal rural neighborhood than a legally recognized community. WP:GEOLAND does not seem to be met, and GNG does not seem to be either. Hog Farm Bacon 03:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demunbruns Store, Kentucky

[edit]
Demunbruns Store, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to have been a community. Topos show a small cluster of buildings, ranging in number from 3 to 5. Newspapers.com brought up a total of three hits, all in reprints of the same government notice that it was seeking bids for road work, with one end of the work area being Demunbruns Store. Google books brings up two hits. One states that there were two stores and the Demunbruns Store site, the other calls it "the Demunbruns Store", saying that it served as a post office, grocery store, and souvenir shop all in one, and that it was razed in 1939. I'm not seeing a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG pass to me. Hog Farm Bacon 03:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (sort of) Google suggested searching for "Demunbrun Store", and this got me enough hits to explain everything. It was a large general store which served as something of a gateway to Mammoth Cave in the days before the national park takeover, and was torn down in 1939 as part of the formation of the park. There are a number of pictures. My suggestion would be to add some of this material to Mammoth Cave National Park, and create a redirect at Demunbrun Store to that section. At any rate, the current article is useless, and as a searchable term, it's not a good search target string. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. Redirects are cheap and harmless, it looks like in Nov 2020 this received 7 views.   // Timothy :: talk  02:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Toosoon Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What About Love (film)

[edit]
What About Love (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 upcoming film, only database-style sources, does not have significant coverage to meet WP:NFF or WP:GNG, perhaps a move to Draft would be advisable BOVINEBOY2008 10:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misaki Amano

[edit]
Misaki Amano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Evidence seems to suggest that she fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Called up to the national team but it doesn't look like she ever played. A WP:BEFORE search was made difficult as there seems to be an anime character with the exact same name. Spiderone 14:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:29, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's certainly hard to imagine someone being called up to a WC squad without being able to pass GNG. I did also take note of the fact that she has Wikipedia articles in multiple languages. Other than this, I couldn't see more than a passing mention anywhere else, though. Of course, I will reconsider if more sources are found. Maybe I've completely missed sources in my BEFORE search or maybe she is the exception that proves the rule. Spiderone 16:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do a Japanese language search? I'm getting a relatively decent number of hits, but I can't tell what's sigcov. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only looked at the first 3 pages on Google, Google News and Google Images. She is mentioned here as third placed goalkeeper in a vote. This seems to make a suggestion that she might have played for Japan in 2008. Ideally, we would need something more conclusive than that and I'm not sure how reliable that source is anyway. The search is littered with namesakes like this. Spiderone 17:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Missvain: why has this been re-listed please? GiantSnowman 17:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like User:Spiderone and SportingFlyer might be onto something. So, just letting it play out one more week. Can't hurt. Missvain (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're seriously saying that a player who made a senior World Cup roster did not "participate" in that competition? That goes against all SID conventions; for winning teams, e.g., you would've gotten a medal even if you hadn't played. Seany91 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Participation would imply playing. In the same way, you don't pass WP:NFOOTBALL for just being on the bench during an international senior fixture. You need to actually play in a match to pass the guideline. The article clearly states that she was the 3rd choice goalkeeper so it's highly likely that she was not even on the bench. Spiderone 19:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTY has the verb "play"; WP:SPORTCRIT has the verb "participate". Those are two different words, and the implication you drew is subjective. Furthermore, WP:SPORTCRIT was developed for "presuming notability." Why wouldn't we presume that someone who's made a senior World Cup roster to be notable? Seany91 (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly says at the top of SPORTCRIT Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. There is no necessity for this article to be kept just because they happened to be named in a major tournament squad. It also says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline (i.e. WP:GNG). Have you got any evidence that Amano passes GNG? I see no reason to keep an article on someone who clearly fails GNG and NFOOTBALL and only passes a very loose interpretation of SPORTCRIT Spiderone 20:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And my point still remains: if someone who made a senior World Cup roster can be presumed not notable, then your understanding of notability is clearly out of whack. Seany91 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Horizons (1956 film)

[edit]
Stone Horizons (1956 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)

Nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged since May 2018. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late in the discussion for that, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The delete argument is compelling and keep votes do not substantiate the necessary sourcing Spartaz Humbug! 19:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon (card game)

[edit]
Bacon (card game) (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 page was created in 2009; that same year it was tagged for being unreferenced, and it has remained unreferenced ever since. I can find no reference to "Bacon" or what is supposed to be its alternative name, "American Euchre", in American or international card game compendia. Almost all online sources are circular references and the game is not listed in the world's leading card game website, pagat.com. "American Euchre" normally appears to refer to the North American variant of Euchre, as opposed to the British variant. The only reference I can find to "Bacon" is at catsatcards.com, but it is itself unsourced and may simply draw inspiration from the Wiki article. If, as this Wiki article says, Bacon was invented during the second half of the last century and is popular in the eastern US, one would expect to find it covered either in modern American card game literature or in online sources from that part of the world. But there appears to be nothing. Eleven years is plenty of time to find sources; it's now time to delete this one. Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's helpful, however, one of those sources is a blog and I thought blogs weren't valid sources. However, we may be able to replace it with the catsatcards.com ref. Bermicourt (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks to have been improved, there should be enough coverage out there to add more sources.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems there are three potential sources for this, and I don't consider any of them reliable. Denexa is a corporate blog for a small business that sells playing cards; gamerules.com is indiscriminate in what it publishes, per their about us page "this is a community effort if you’re looking for a game we don’t have tell us, and we’ll get it on the site ASAP. Did you invent a game? Badass! Send us the rules to it and if it makes sense, seems like fun, we’ll add it and promote it on the site to your credit"; it's hard to tell exactly what catsatcards is because their about us page literally just lists a bunch of cats. Essentially, we have three different self-published sources, none of which are from people with established expertise and none of which are reliable or establish notability. Lowercaserho (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no claims of notability in the article, the references present do not support notability, I searched for anything to support notability, but the did not find anything (name does not lend it's self to a narrow search) Jeepday (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was not able to find any better sources for this variation. It is mentioned once or twice in passing in a couple of sites but otherwise not elaborated upon except for the sites discussed above, which are insufficient. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 00:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this editor made several other unsourced articles on card games (which I am now checking for sources); it's very possible they were inventing the games themselves. I'm not sure how to tell if the sources found are citogenesis or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 11 years unsourced = citogenesis more likely than not. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The total lack of sources seems to have been addressed. Here is one more that was interesting to read - not sure about reliability, however. As a WP user I would appreciate having this article available to me if I wanted to know more about the game, which doesn't seem to have been recently invented as speculated above.--Concertmusic (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 19:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Mashkov

[edit]
Roman Mashkov (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 came across this article when looking for an article to copyedit but after doing a bit of work am concerned that it does not meet the notability requirements. In particular, there seem to be no reliable sources about this man. Two of the sources given are deadlinks (and judging by the webdomains, were never reliable sources by WP standards) and the third appears to be an unreliable, user contributed source [4]. I have made other searches and have not been able to find reliable sources which could support the info included in this bio. Slp1 (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now possibly found one of the deadlinks sources elsewhere [5]. It seems to be excerpts from the memoirs of Georgy Zhukov, but assuming it is accurate or reliable (which is very uncertain, as far as I can see), does not even mention the subject of the article. Slp1 (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slp1 (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in RS is present in the sources that have been added to the article, and Mashkov is unquestionably notable under WP:SOLDIER as a top-level award recipient under longstanding consensus in addition to meeting WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple secondary sources. Given that most Russian newspapers and books are not digitized, it is certain that more coverage of him exists than what can easily be found in digitized publications. While the title Hero of the Soviet Union was more frequently awarded in World War II than comparable awards such as the Medal of Honor, at most less than a thousandth of the millions of men in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war received the award. As to arguments about the lack of notability of small unit commanders, we have numerous examples of highly notable privates and junior non-commissioned officers. Kges1901 (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding those two sources. I found an online version of the Kuznetsov book and it has a fairly detailed bio in it, as you know. [6], which is excellent. Can you help with the Shkadov book? Is there an online version available where we can see the extent of the coverage he receives? Of course, there is also the question of how reliable sources written in the Soviet era really are (see Historiography in the Soviet Union,[7]). --Slp1 (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working off what I have been able to find online, and the Shkadov Heroes of the Soviet Union biographical dictionary is available online with a google title search. Again these are not the only examples of coverage and it is highly likely based on what I have found researching other Hero of the Soviet Union biographies that he is covered in a unit history of the 5th Tank Corps, but that is not available online. As for the reliability of Soviet sources, it is impossible to write anything about Soviet military history without using Soviet sources and they are used by highly RS Eastern Front historians such as David Glantz and David Stahel. On the general issue of Soviet reliability, see Stahel, Kiev 1941, pp. 5-6: on strictly military matters they were frequently closer to the mark than contemporary western accounts.. Kges1901 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did some googling with the title but haven't been able to get much further. I understand that it is impossible to write about military topics without Soviet sources, and that they may indeed be reliable on the facts. But this is a question is whether someone who is only mentioned in Soviet sources of a particular era (and in fact is only one among 1000s and 1000s given a similar hero treatment in those sources) is really notable enough to have an article on WP). --Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The copy I use for Shkadov, Mashkov's entry is in volume 2. The fact is that Mashkov is mentioned in modern Russian sources because of his Hero status - HSUs are still considered national heroes in Russia due to the Great Patriotic War narrative. In the case of Mashkov, we have examples such as [8], [9], and [10] Kges1901 (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOLDIER is an essay not a guideline you should stop mischaracterising it. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that WP:SOLDIER is in fact an essay and not a community-accepted inclusion guideline. Other arguments would be needed to keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He is a highest Soviet Honor award recipient, Hero of the Soviet Union, plus two other high honor awards, one of which is the next highest after the hero of USSR. This is like a Medal of Honor equivalent or so. Understand the Soviet Union was a bit more liberal in given the hero's awards than the U.S. (11K v ~500), still deleting this decorated Red Army officer will be a sign of bias against non-English WWII soldiers. Please consider keeping teh article. Kolma8 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pages for recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, the highest award of Nazi Germany, get deleted so the same standard should apply here. Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not comparable because the Knight's Cross was a multi-level award and the highest level of it is still considered notable. Hero of the Soviet Union, Medal of Honor, and Victoria Cross are all awards with only one level, so that Knight's Cross AfD's do not apply here. Additionally, many of them have been restored with enough material to be considered notable.Kges1901 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it not comparable? What levels of it qualify then? Only the Knight's Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds of which only one was awarded or the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds of which only 27 were awarded? Only 7000 Knights Cross were awarded in total, fewer than the 12,777 Hero of the Soviet Unions. Mztourist (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about number awarded. It's simply the fact that the Knight's Cross was often awarded for a significantly lower level of gallantry than was required for other "top" awards. The basic level of the Knight's Cross was effectively a second-level decoration comparable to, say, the British Distinguished Conduct Medal or Distinguished Service Order or the US Distinguished Service Cross or Navy Cross. The lower awards (Iron Cross 1st and 2nd Class) were so ubiquitous as to probably not even count as third-level awards (and were distributed much like the US Bronze Star or the UK Mention in Dispatches). The Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves or above should be regarded as a first-level award, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: I added reliable sources within the External Links section: sources are from the Russian museums and encyclopedia.Partizan Kuzya (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFD closures are really useless and shameless. Do not waste time unnecessarily disgusting guys. Is AfD something to wait for until we get more delete votes? VocalIndia (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have participated in many AfD discussions, but I do not really understand the procedure of AfD closures. Please point to me! VocalIndia (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is short and voting to keep on other grounds needs a policy basis to count Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Bachus

[edit]
Reginald Bachus (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 “senior pastor” who doesn’t satisfy WP:RELPEOPLE, generally WP:RELPEOPLE is used as yardstick as an alternative to WP:GNG, which a before search shows subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The few hits are in primary sources not independent of the pastor. The sources in the article aren’t event about the pastor. They read more like announcements, an example is this Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina007, Thanks for reviewing the article and for the pointers. I have added more news sources and web references. Regarding the announcements like this one, I thought they are of value coming from government records. Thanks. Innocentwalu (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The announcement I made reference to in my Del rationale is this & not the one you just linked to above which isn’t even sufficient to show he satisfies WP:GNG. Can you show us in the very least WP:THREE reliable sources that proves subject of our discussion does indeed possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy GNG? Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Celestina007, thanks for your continued guidance. Here are the WP:THREE sources you requested for that I have found from the New York Times, bloomberg law, Atlanta Daily World and NY Times again. Innocentwalu (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked some "references" and they do not support the claims in the article, such as one [12 at the moment] says that he was recognized by the Congress, but the link leads to an article where it says that Bachus was a guest speaker; the other [11] is just a Bachus's own article, which clearly cannot be used; other link [10] is only accessible by subscription, so cannot be verified. Now: [1] link mentions Bachus in passing, not really a good reference; [3] - a House of Rep tribute... and so on... Most importantly fails WP:RELPEOPLE, does not even come close to meet any of the 4 criteria. Kolma8 (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kolma8, Thanks for the feedback. I have done more research and added references from NY Times (2), bloomberg law and others. I'm going to clean up the text in relation to 'recognition'. I based that text on this link and this one that appear to be a congregational record.Innocentwalu (talk) 20:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocentwalu, it seems you don’t understand the concept of GNG which requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The two sources you just added do not substantiate nor prove the notability of the subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Innocentwalu, the reliability of resources will not compensate for the lack of notability here. Notability on Wiki is a criterion based concept. Some folks are meet wiki's notability criteria, some don't. Mr. Bachus appears to me as a great honorable man, but that does not mean that he meets the particular criteria to have his own article on wiki.Kolma8 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources provided in the article to pass the general notability guideline. While not all sources cited necessarily point to notability, they are still good sources for content--and enough exist to meet GNG's standards. Further, it seems that the subject also meets the criteria set out in the essay WP:IMPACT and although that's not policy, it is useful for interpretation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, there are literally no three solid reliable sources that all adhere to, or are of any value to WP:GNG. Like stated earlier, subject also doesn’t satisfy any criterion from RELPEOPLE so I do not see any reason why it should be a standalone article. Celestina007 (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom and Kolma8's comments and research with an ATD of userfy: I was ready to jump in on the side of "keep" EXCEPT, I disagree that "There are enough sources". A lack of reliable in-depth and independent sources is evident and the collective total of the sources presented do not contribute enough to advance notability for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I do not doubt that the article has enough citations to verify it, but I still have grave doubts as to the subject's notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:IMPACT and also GNG per the third party coverage from Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World. None of these are niche "local only" publications. If you delete this don't be surprised if people say WP is racist.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Meets an Essay? an essay?? When did essays become a yardstick as opposed to policy?? Of which subject of the article doesn’t satisfy, that is, both WP:GNG & WP:RELPEOPLE. The aforementioned sources fall short of WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, when did we start keeping or deleting articles based on what “people” would say? Celestina007 (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World are the three sources which proves it meets GNG. If Wikipedia can't even follow its own rules to keep from deleting a civil rights activist, people might wonder what motivated that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I went back and forth on this one for a while, but was finally convinced to vote Keep by the small improvements made to the article, as well as that there is international coverage in both French and Brazilian Portuguese if News is searched. Nothing very in-depth, but in the end I see no need to delete.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Dublin

[edit]
List of tallest buildings and structures in Dublin (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 applicable notability (and content) criteria. In terms of WP:SIGCOV and WP:LISTN, and per the very recent/related outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tallest buildings and structures in Derry, there are few to no sources which discuss the members of this list together. The very few sources that do discuss some of the list members as a group (like this or this, clearly state that Dublin is not known for its tall buildings. Stating that "Dublin isn't known for its towering skyscrapers" and "In the 1960s, we built two tall buildings – both of which, by today’s standards, are hardly classifiable as skyscrapers [..] Since then, typical 'tall' commercial buildings built in and around Dublin were no more than six to eight storeys in height". In terms of the content itself (and WP:CFORK and related guidelines), *all* of the members of this list (and the content/tables/etc alongside the list members) is/are covered elsewhere. Including at List of tallest buildings in Ireland. Which seems to be where effectively all the material content (and sources) here seem to be "copied" from. I propose redirection. But it doesn't seem like a plausible or necessary redirect. Guliolopez (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Completely incorrect points, Dublin has since built multiple tall buildings since 2000 as seen in the current article we are discussing. Article is notable as tallest buildings in Ireland is a poorly kept up to date article plus almost every capital city on the planet has such an article on tallest buildings and structures. One of the most common google search query's for Dublin specifically is its tallest building which wikipedia currently fails to answer well. Also the Derry article was deleted way too early as it like this current Dublin article is not yet complete. This Dublin article will also cover past and future developments of the city, there are multiple 100m plus buildings proposed for the city [1] for instance (can also be seen there are more in Dublin's planning application portal https://www.dublincity.ie/residential/planning/planning-applications and the cited article does not cover these. Most notably the article of tallest buildings and structures in the relatively nearby city of Belfast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Belfast which is the template for how this article will develop in future. Note the buildings and structures are of a similar height. It would be nice to be able to finish an article before it was fully reviewed for instance I'm still going through the process of adding references...
Regarding the other article I used it as a skeleton for this one however I found incorrect info on it and have made edits on it accordingly...I intend this article to be much more fleshed out and in detail, and there are enough buildings and structures above threshold heights to warrant a separate article in itself, unlike the previous article about Derry. I would have added all of this into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin, but the article would have been too long for a normal readers attention and too awkward for someone looking for the specific information.
list of tallest buildings in Ireland also fails to rank the churches as buildings, as other tallest building articles do for other major cities.
I have now updated the article further with lists of unbuilt and proposed buildings of significant height, this proposal wrongly highlights a lack of references there are now currently 34. These lists are more up to date than any on the Ireland article and there are more buildings to add. The user who made the complaint also deleted titles of tables I was about to create and has incorrectly interfered in the creation of the article, with likely a political bias against the building of tall structures in Dublin. I still cannot see how multiple 200m plus structures are not significant.

Another page for proof of concept is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Edinburgh which has even fewer High rise Buildings than Dublin also note this article has not been deleted despite the existence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Scotland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petaaa95 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC) I also noticed this user has made numerous unwarranted deletions on the tallest buildings and structures in Ireland list, well cited lists of future and past proposals and has a large personal investment in it, sadly I think this undermines any argument they make due to inherent bias and I propose they should be banned form contributing to either any of the pages linked due to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petaaa95 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petaaa95 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.emporis.com/city/100659/dublin-ireland/type/skyscrapers

Emporis is the biggest database for buildings in the world and takes all heights from the planning applications themselves and are only incorrect when plans get amended. It is the best source available regarding building and structure heights. Anyone involved in planning and development knows this.

  • Comment - as with the Derry list, the biggest issue here is notability. Are there reliable sources covering this topic significantly? At the moment, this article is almost entirely a violation of WP:NOTMIRROR as it's largely a copy and paste from the user-generated database Emporis. Spiderone 16:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a copy and paste from emporis, some of it is sourced from emporis the rest I'm adding directly from the planning applications themselves, this article is still a work in progress, also most other lists of this nature use them as a primary source. Anyone involved in planning knows its the most reliable database available.


Also adding other sources for each building if not tonight, tomorrow, this deletion thread should never have been made (but for someone with a large personal investment in a linked article) for a relevant article which is newly created. For instance what is the point in editing in Wikipedia if an article cannot be improved rather than deleting relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petaaa95 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not ready to be posted to the main space, you are generally encouraged to use WP:DRAFT. Spiderone 17:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Leeds has a page, Bristol has a page and Dublin is bigger than either Leeds or Bristol so I fail to see any consistency in the deletion criteria proposed here. Give the editor a chance, the page is brand new and all of the elements are clearly not in place yet because it is a work in progress. Wikimucker (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument Spiderone 18:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good time for you to go off and tackle Leeds and Bristol you mean. Let the user finish their article before we prematurely judge it.
I am particularly interested in their ability to gather unbuilt Celtic Tiger ephemera of which there is rather a lot, sadly mostly unwikied until now. Wikimucker (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was able to find sources commenting on tall buildings in Dublin.
    • Surve, Aakanksha (14 August 2019). "What are 10 of the tallest buildings in Dublin?". DublinLive. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
    • Comiskey, Justin (27 April 2016). "Barely scraping the sky: why Dublin's tallest buildings are too short". The Irish Times. Retrieved 15 December 2020.
I'm sure there are more, but the two sources above should be enough to establish notability. Tall buildings are apparently rare in Dublin, which makes the existence of tall buildings at all, in such a large city, even more remarkable. Edge3 (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - Notwithstanding the issues there have been with maintaining these pages for Guliolopez I believe this seems to meet just about every criteria for being a wp page. I'll have a review of it in detail in the next few days to make sure everything is above board anyway. Detail on this page being set up is contained on a message board Skyscrapercity if anyone wants to contribute there. Financefactz (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfredo Amr Ruiz

[edit]
Wilfredo Amr Ruiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Some minor coverage. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 14:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing early due to obvious consensus. Missvain (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacken Sebastien

[edit]
Jacken Sebastien (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 can't find any evidence that suggests that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. I can find this match report and this one but neither are for football matches between two teams listed at WP:FPL. Even if he does pass NFOOTBALL by skin of teeth, the GNG failure also needs to be a concern. Spiderone 13:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Atwal

[edit]
Karan Atwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was previously a WP:A7 by User:ArsenalFan700 but got declined. The article does assert that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL by the skin of his teeth but I can't find any solid evidence. No appearances logged here, here or here. I could not find anything to suggest that he could pass WP:GNG either. Spiderone 13:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm presuming that that must have been the game where he made his sole top flight appearance, since the article states that he only played one game before moving to United Sikkim Spiderone 14:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely wasn't his only first-team match. This, admittedly a blog so can't be used but just for this discussion on just having 1 game, shows that he played in another game against HAL. I can also find a lot of actual sources on him being an unused sub in the Federation Cup. But yeah, as of now, he is super, super fringe passing WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Pueyo

[edit]
Tomás Pueyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of Notability. People notable for only one event (article published at Medium). Criteria based on search engine statistics (of that article). Alexcalamaro (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alexcalamaro (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Armenia

[edit]
Russian Armenia (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 is this false card?

At that time, there was no state or administrative unit called Armenia to divide it. At that time, only Erivan Province (Safavid Empire) → Erivan Khanate → Armenian Oblast → Erivan Governorate existed in that place. Nominated and these specified articles duplicate each other. Under what agreement was it divided? Who transferred to Russia? The contract was signed between whom? And the map indicated there is also fictional Sulh220 (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Armenia is an idea, even if it is not always politically descrbed in that way. I would argue that the article be moved to Russian Empire Armenia. There was a concept of Armenia, as the areas where there was a large or majority ethnic Armenian population, even if there was no political unit of Armenia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming article is renamed to Armenian under Russian rule or something. Addictedtohistory (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is used in dozens of WP:RS in order to refer to the period in Eastern Armenian history that directly followed the Iranian/Persian period. One example: "Announcements written in Armenian were circulated in Armenian villages, and Russian soldiers, some of them Armenian, together with Cossacks "strongly persuaded" any reluctant Armenian to leave Iran. Between 1828 and 1831, 35,560 Armenians left the Azarbayjan Province and moved into the newly formed Russian Armenian Province, which was soon identified as "Russian Armenia" in order to distinguish from "Turkish Armenia." -- George Bournoutian. (2018). "Armenia and Imperial Decline: The Yerevan Province, 1900-1914". Routledge. page 20
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) 12:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andris Riherts

[edit]
Andris Riherts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football player and coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Previuosly deleted in scope of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rihards Gorkšs, but recreated. BlameRuiner (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramya Behara

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ramya Behara (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 singer. More of WP:PROMOTION here. — Amkgp 💬 11:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 11:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 11:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 11:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 11:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Misri

[edit]
Ahmed Misri (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'm not super familiar with bodybuilding so I don't know if any of Misri's titles grant him automatic notability. Working on WP:GNG instead, I don't think he passes it. Most of the sources on him focus on his father Esa Misri but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. This article already exists in draft space and, in my view, it should have stayed there for now. Spiderone 11:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom Academy, Suratgarh

[edit]
Blossom Academy, Suratgarh (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 school. Search finds only the usual directory listings etc., no secondary coverage at all, let alone RS. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. I earlier requested speedy (keep forgetting that educational inst's aren't eligible for A7) which was rightly rejected, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi International School Dwarka

[edit]
Delhi International School Dwarka (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 has no references to reliable sources, doesn't seem to be notable, and is filled with original research. In addition, it is literred with advertisements to the school's allegedly official YouTube channel. I did a Bing search, yet it doesn't seem to shed light on its notability. GeraldWL 10:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cottrell

[edit]
Ben Cottrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can see, this fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. He has some coverage but, in reliable sources, it's nowhere near as in depth as, say, Marcelo Flores, who also fails NFOOTBALL, but has a decent claim to passing GNG. Most of the coverage of Cottrell is just in Arsenal fan sites and blogs. Suggest delete or draftify. Spiderone 10:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTBALL states Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable.. Since he has not done this, he fails NFOOTBALL. This can be kept if sources show that he passes WP:GNG, though. Spiderone 14:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should probably be discussed, thanks for pointing them out! I can point to at least 70 AFD discussions where soccer players who played 1-5 professional games have been deleted. This is due to a consensus that has been developing. Geschichte (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dundalk does not play in a fully professional league, please see WP:FPL. Spiderone 10:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Leisure

[edit]
Stanley Leisure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks any notability/importance to have its own article. Kolma8 (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics Golden Age characters. Consensus that this subject is not notable, so will redirect to list where it is mentioned. The article content is still accessible in the article history and may be merged as desired. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magneto (Atlas Comics)

[edit]
Magneto (Atlas 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)

The subject has no secondary source coverage, appeared in only one comic. The page itself cites no sources. --WikiEditor1o2oi3i (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boaz Eidelberg

[edit]
Boaz Eidelberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this individual has done a lot, the article does not indicate how it meets WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I am unable to find discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 05:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 05:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 05:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 05:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worked very closely with Anwar Chitayat in promoting brushless linear motor technology around the world since its beginning 30 years ago. He was the inventor and I was the promoter. We worked very closely together for 8 years and were successful in revolutionizing the world of high performance automation. We were connected with thousands of engineers, technicians, scientists, business managers, plant managers of potential customers many of which were on Fortune 500 who notably knew very well who we are and where to find us. As result of my leadership in business development of linear motors Today Linear motor technology is using Anwar's inventions all over the world by thousands of companies. Therefore Regarding notability I am in process of collecting both Anwar's and mine most relevant list of references to add it to the pages. For that we may need some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beidelberg (talk • contribs) 06:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well sourced. Kolma8 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. This process triggered my thoughts in creating more related technology pages which are missing. Will probably start is early next week and will advise progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beidelberg (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not well sourced; no pass of GNG evident. Sourcing analysis for current version: Footnotes #1-#4 and #10-#13 (patents and publications by the subject) are primary and not independent. #5-#7 (ASME, American Machinist, and Control Engineering) only quote him and are not in-depth. #8 and #9 (Rockwell and Optinet) don't mention him at all. That leaves only a local news story about the subject landing a private airplane, not enough for notability. Google Scholar shows citation counts of 14, 11, 10, and less, not enough for academic notability through WP:PROF#C1, and the academic career section of the article describes nothing else that could qualify. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I used your comments to change Optinet source and add a more second sources. Also wrote a related article High performance positioning systemsBeidelberg (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For people bitable as developing technology , treating them as academics and looking for impact of published papers is irrelvant.The equivalent is to show the impact of their inventions, andd that's considerably harder to quantify. DGG ( talk ) 10:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep Reads more like a resume than an article. Ok he's done lots, but WHY is his stuff important. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Tried to add some flying and military spice to my "resume" like life story. The importance is perhapse the combination of innovative, real time, solutions to real problems and teaching students how it is done Beidelberg (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with DGG, the practical impact of an engineer or inventor, for example in industry, can be difficult to measure. It appears to me that overall the subject's work with linear motors, machining and positioning systems, including papers, patents, development and teaching is notable. --Alan Islas (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Townsville

[edit]
List of tallest buildings in Townsville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You need to have a good reason to bring an article back to AfD when the consensus was so clearly 'keep' before. In my opinion, I think that it's worth having a second discussion about this one, especially since the previous discussion was quite poor for the simple reason that many of the arguments totally ignored any Wikipedia inclusion policy. It was disappointing to see arguments to avoid being used such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ITSINTERESTING. The rationale for deletion was, itself, not strong and that seems to be one of the main reasons as to why it was kept. Since that AfD, there has been a growing consensus that these types of lists do need to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV and do need to pass WP:LISTN, some examples are below but this is not exhaustive:

And many, many more. As with those above, this 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 Wikipedia article (only one notable building).
  • Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraper Center, Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage.
  • I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Townsville' 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 in that it's just a copy and paste from Emporis.
  • The city is not the largest in Queensland nor is it the capital.
  • I really do not believe that a building being taller than 36m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Brisbane so why are we doing it here? Spiderone 21:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is much more than a mirror to Emporis the two are not the same. This article really needs a ref improve tab There is several sources so some Townsville buildings have some notability. I think its better to improve articles that need it than just the easy option to delete them. As we try to enhance Wikipedia as a learning tool going forward.CHCBOY (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CHCBOY: Where are the other sources that this article uses? None of them are cited in the article. It certainly gives the impression that it's all cited to the user-generated Emporis. Spiderone 19:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we need to find more sources which can help improve the article. I have linked the city's tallest to its article now renamed.CHCBOY (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Grand Chancellor Townsville is an interesting building and most probably a notable one. My concern still remains, though, that the topic of 'tallest buildings in Townsville' is not covered significantly by the media. The two tallest buildings are both notable enough for articles but is their height really something that's documented that much? Outside of Emporis and Skyscraperpage, is the topic of tall buildings in Townsville actually discussed at all? Spiderone 18:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand this issue they are not mentioned in the media.CHCBOY (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the existence of that article does not prove that this one has notability. I agree that the Wollongong list doesn't warrant inclusion so I have started a discussion for that one too. Spiderone 11:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keeping this. Please improve and discuss renaming/moving via talk page or Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Independence

[edit]
Northern Independence (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 don't think this is a thing; seems to conflate and confuse regional devolution with 'independence' or 'secession'. Likely WP:SYNTH, possibly with an underlying political motive (note the plug for a new 'Northern Independence Party'). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 100% agree with the nominator: this looks like WP:SYNTH to me as well. At a passing glance it looks well-sourced, but most of the references have nowt to do with independence, instead being about devolution. My (very much WP:OR, unreferenced and probably subjective) perspective as a northerner is that full-blown independence is not a thing anyone has really advocated until the existence of the new party. (Devolution has been: for instance by the Yorkshire Party.) Renaming to Devolution to the North of England or similar, and refocusing, would be a second choice if it were determined the material was worth saving. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 14:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fully agree with the nominator and the excellent points made by User:YorkshireLad. The article contains many errors - (eg the idea that the 2004 North East England devolution referendum was about "whether to establish a parliament for the North" is at best a serious misunderstanding). The article reads as very leading and there does not seem to have been any serious discussion of the North of England become its own state in modern times (devolution or the North of England joining an Independent Scotland as mentioned here are not the same as Independence) or any coverage of any such campaigns by credible sources. There is also no political party with any elected representatives that advocates such a step. Equally what is meant by the "Northern or the "North of England" problematic as this is a vague term. While mention is made of an "independent country in the North of England, based on historic Northumbria" inthe article, the Kingdom of Northumbria's borders varied significantly over the years. By some definitions Northumbria would arguably exclude large parts of what is now accepted as being part of the North of England (eg Manchester), by others it would include significant parts of Scotland including Edinburgh! Dunarc (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I am changing my view as some of my concerns have been addressed, but there is still the problem that the article confuses independence with devolution. In fairness, this I do not think this is entirely the creators fault as this is something that other sources mix-up. Basically what was proposed in 2004 for the North East (and was planned to be offered to other regions including the Yorkshire and Humber in the future until the failure of the 2004 referendum killed the idea) was the creation of an assembly (not a parliament) which would take some decision making power from the Parliament of the United Kingdom as the Welsh Assembly does for Wales. The North (and any other devolved region) would still return MPs as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do post-devolution. Independence would involve the creation of a new state or states as happened when the Irish Free State was set up. Equally English regional parties with elected councillors like the Yorkshire Party are not like pro-Independence parties in Scotland and Wales. For example the Yorkshire Party does not favour a parliament for the North of England, but an Assembly for Yorkshire. It is not currently working to create a state that also includes the North East and North West of England, which the idea of it being a Northern independence movement would imply. The issue of devolution for the North and its various regions is to my mind worthy of an article as it is a notable subject debated by many parties and it is great to see someone work on it. If the article is renamed and focused on devolution/increased autonomy and makes clear that there movements in different regions of the North of England, then I think most of the issues could be sorted and we would have a useful article. Dunarc (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm the creator of the article, and the RS articles (VICE ""North of England Independence Devolution " ""An independent north? What an England severed in two might look like" The independent) ARE about the North breaking away from England, as well, there are a bunch of articles talking about the various parties, and their wishes for an independent/autonomous North. This is clearly a live issue, there are four political parties all formed to push for some level of independence for the North, all with their own wiki pages, and yes some of them *do actually have elected members* in local council. My main feeling in writing it was... I was suprised there wasn't an article for it already - there are wiki articles about parties formed for the issues, but oddly, there were no wiki articles about the *actual* issue itself. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will also comment on Dunarc discussing the practicality of the North breaking away... that's got nothing to do with a discussion about whether the article should be deleted. Whether a Northern England secession movement is practical, or whether the North is properly defined, is no doubt an issue for this movement - but the Wikipedia article just reflects the existence of the movement, whether the movement is going to work, or whether you can define the north easily is not relevant to the AFD dicsussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Deathlibrarian: Thanks for improving the article; it's definitely not the same one I !voted on earlier. I'm inclined to change my !vote because this is looking less WP:SYNTHy, but I'd still argue that about 50% of the article is still about devolution rather than independence. (In particular, while arguably those four parties want some level of independence for the North, that manifests as three of them—the North East Party, the Northern Party and the Yorkshire Party—wanting no more than devolution. Imagine how the SNP would respond if you told them they had "some level of independence" already!
      I wonder how you would feel about renaming and refocusing the article, as I suggested above, to be explicitly about devolution and (implicitly) independence? There doesn't seem to be an article about devolution to the North either, unless I'm missing it, so this could be a really good opportunity to have that covered too, and I'm not sure that (yet) the two issues are sufficiently distinct to warrant two separate articles. Even if kept as an article solely about independence, I think it should be renamed to something like "Independence of the North of England", for two reasons: (a) WP:NCCAPS indicates that "independence" shouldn't have a capital letter unless it's the first word in the title, and (b) it should be indicated that this is about the independence of the North of England, as opposed to the north of any other country, per WP:PRECISE. In other circumstances I'd have WP:BOLDly moved it myself, but it's inadvisable to do so during an AfD.
      Finally, pinging the nom, DoubleGrazing, in case they want to take a look at the re-jigged article. (You've already pinged the other !voter so there's no need for me to do so.) Sorry, this was a longer post than I intended! YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • - Cheers YorkshireLad - Yes, I've spent a bit of time finding more RS and adding a bit more detail, I was hunting down some better sources, and some BBC coverage and an extra article from the Independent. I'm happy for the article to be renamed, you are correct, there is a difference between devolution and outright independence, though they both are seeking more autonomy for the regions than they now currently have of course.... but I think as you say makes sense for the article to cover both, two articles doesn't seem warranted. I'll change the spelling of indepedence, and I figured the title would need to be changed - I was thinking it may need England in the title eg Northern Independence (England).. or something. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for tagging me in, @YorkshireLad: I've read the article again and looked at the newly-added sources, and while I agree that things have somewhat improved, the fundamental issue remains, namely that the article combines calls for devolution and increased autonomy with some mostly humorous remarks about 'Unilateral Declaration of Independence' etc., and concludes that Northern England is aiming for independence. It is not; that is where the synthesis lies. If this were an article about the debate over, and progress (or otherwise) towards, increasing autonomy for Northern England, in that context there could perhaps be a short section about calls for independence (with suitable health warnings to make it clear that that's still not much of a 'thing'), but that wouldn't be improving this article, that would be creating a new article and merging some of this into that (which, FWIW, I would support, but that's a different matter). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and refocus, along the lines of the discussion between me and Deathlibrarian above. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm the article creator, and just in response to DoubleGrazing's suggestion I may have created the article because I am connected to one of the parties - I am not, in fact I live in far away Australia, so have no personal connection to the issue, which I personally see as impractical for economic reasons. I stumbled across the issue doing AFD when one of the parties was listed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sigh The article has now been moved anyway, by Starklinson, to Northern independence. I don't want to get into a move war by moving it back again, especially since it may well end up being moved yet again after the AfD, but just leaving this note for the closer in case it impacts on any closing scripts. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just fixing the capitalisation, feel free to continue your discussion! YorkshireLad your proposals also make sense – Starklinson (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Starklinson, As I said above, per WP:AFD: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. It's expressly not a prohibition, so I won't move it back and you haven't done anything wrong by fixing the capitalisation. (And outside of an AfD discussion, I would have done the same!) But it potentially makes it harder for whoever comes to close the decision, because the AfD and the article are now under different page names. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Thampy

[edit]
Roshan Thampy (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. Can't find any solid patents or papers for his alleged work. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 07:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Editors appear to have consensus that this does not meet NFOOTY or GNG now but may pass notability in future. Draftifying per request. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jithin M S

[edit]
Jithin M S (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 and WP:NFOOTY. No senior appearances at a fully-pro league till date. Can be draftified also.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  05:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  05:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  05:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  05:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:ArnabSaha I thought IFA shield is notable and Article isn't complete yet. So I prefer to move to draft instead of deletion.Iamfarzan (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Iamfarzan, as per this list, only I-League and ISL appearances are considered. Yes, moving to draft will be a good option.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ok, then move to draft.Iamfarzan (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sellew, California

[edit]
Sellew, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND. Not on topos, no GNIS entry, and all of the newspapers.com hits for Sellew in Imperial County seem to be for a railroad engineer named Francis L. Sellow. Hog Farm Bacon 05:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smileghost (Innyume)

[edit]
Smileghost (Innyume) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Computer game, insufficient evidence that topic meets Wikipedia's high standards of WP:Notability. MOST computer games do not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 05:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smallwood Academy (2nd nomination)

[edit]
Smallwood Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Academy (2nd nomination) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted. Not a notable school or relevant in any way.--UserNL2020 (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Azeez

[edit]
Miguel Azeez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD deleted because Azeez played in the UEFA Europa League and not the Irish League. The team he played in the Europa League however is part of the Irish League, which isn't in WP:FPL. WP:NFOOTY says that a player is notable when they play in a game in which both sides are fully-professional, Dundalk isn't. The article also fails WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that source was not present in the article and on its own does not mean Azeez passes GNG. See also WP:AGF. GiantSnowman 11:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burnside Avenue

[edit]
Burnside Avenue (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 is mostly about a road. I see nothing to indicate this road has any sig coverage. There is one ref that is routine local coverage about a construction project. If there was some important sourced info on the road, it could be merged into U.S. Route 44, but I don't see anything appropriate to merge. There is one paragraph that says Burnside was a separate community in the 1800s (and it's in the navbox as a community). That paragraph is unsourced, but there is a possibility the article could be kept (and renamed) if any sources are found to show it was an actual distinct settlement at one time. MB 03:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MB 03:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MB 03:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New York and Connecticut are different states, though, admittedly, it doesn't always feel that way. Redirecting to East Hartford would be a possibility. 24.151.121.140 (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spellacy, California

[edit]
Spellacy, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As the article suggests, this appears to simply be a collection of oil wells in the middle of a largely uninhabited oil field. WP:GEOLAND is not met. There's a ton of noise under the search terms I used, because Tim Spellacy was apparent a major local figure and oil baron in the area, but I didn't find anything indicative of a WP:GNG pass. Hog Farm Bacon 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 03:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "No permanent residents live in Spellacy." and no evidence it was ever a notable community. There MIGHT be an argument about the Elkhorn Pit and Spellacy Sands/Mascot Oil, but on the balance nothing makes Spellacy 'a community' and it fails GNG... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gläser

[edit]
Michael Gläser (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 GNG, WP:MUSICBIO - only claim to notability here is the Grammy and that was awarded to a whole choir, not individually. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flashflight

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Flashflight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well, over a decade later and this page has not improved in a single way. It's still spammy advertising of one brand of a non-notable, non-unique toy. Original AfD closed as "no consensus". There may be room for a section on light-up discs at Flying disc; but even so, this would not be the sole entry there (nor was it the first such product). There's just nothing notable about this. When I Google this, I see the company's own marketing, third-party sales at shopping sites, trivial reviews at non-independent sites (toy/game review sites that make all their money off advertising what they're reviewing), and trivial coverage in mainstream news sources (lists of toys, lists of outdoor games, etc.), and other dreck. No one considers this company or its product to be particularly important.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: See also Talk:Flashflight, User talk:Playhard, and User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 42#Question regarding trade name use and rights. Short version: creator of page claims to be the owner of the company that makes this product (WP:COI), and also appears to have made a legal threat (or a threat to make a legal threat: "My legal [counsel] is sending a cease and desist [letter] where it pertains to the use of our Trade Name") pertaining to Ultimate (sport). What else this WP:SPA may have been up to could bear some scrutiny, at least as it pertains to flying-disc games.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 04:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Evangelistic Association

[edit]
American Evangelistic Association (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 cannot find any evidence that this is a notable org. Results are mainly non reliable sources or mentions where a missionary is serving. The cited book is nothing other than a blurb among other blurbs about religious orgs, nothing to establish notability StarM 02:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa#Notable deaths. There isn't clear consensus on what the redirect target should be, but editors are welcome to resolve that via talk page discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths due to COVID-19 in South Africa

[edit]
List of deaths due to COVID-19 in South Africa (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:STANDALONE. No reason for this when we already have List of deaths due to COVID-19. Lettlerhello • contribs 00:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 00:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 00:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Arkady Fiedler. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orinoko (novel)

[edit]
Orinoko (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find any sources, fails WP:BK. Arsonxists (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Arsonxists (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Arsonxists (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hovley, California

[edit]
Hovley, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mr. Hovley apparently had extensive agricultural concerns in the Brawley area, and one gathers this siding (for this is what all the oldest topos label it) served one of his concerns. The siding has been replaced by a more extensive network just to the south. The area is full of ag businesses now, but go back into the 1950s and it's all farms except for one elevator or the like at the siding. I get no sign that this is was ever a settlement, and in fact get precious few name drops of the place at all, so I'll have to say it's not notable. Mangoe (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netrikann (2021 film)

[edit]
Netrikann (2021 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 future film that has not received any noteworthy coverage to support production being notable. Fails WP:NFF Donaldd23 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I have looked for other sources but only found a few press releases about the release of the teaser, and some gossip style notices of the same kind that are already used as sources in the article. No sign of this meeting WP:NFF or WP:GNG. The title indicates that the film will be released in 2021, but not even that is has a source. --bonadea contributions talk 17:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of WP:RS available to verify the information in the article and also to establish the notability of this unreleased film Spiderone 14:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm happy to provide a userspace copy for anyone that wishes to improve on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sodari (caste)

[edit]
Sodari (caste) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_December_14&oldid=995620488"