Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 13

< December 12	December 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coolidge Springs, California

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

According the the topos, location of a well and a house, the ruins of which can be seen still; meanwhile someone has put up a small compound on the other side of the road. According to text, well, I cannot find any description of this place. No evidence that this was a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 17:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, looks like this could have used a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion Jeepday (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and definitely fails WP:GEOLAND as well; there's no debate to be had here Spiderone 18:30, 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 merge to Balawaristan. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baloristan

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

I don't know why this page exists, given that there is another page called Balawaristan. Sources are practically nil. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect/merge We don't need a discussion to combine articles on alternate spellings of the same name, just WP:BOLD it. Reywas92^Talk 00:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Balawaristan as a known alternate spelling. This is a no brainer, wonder why an AfD was needed for this obvious merge. Walrus Ji (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & Disambig. Redirect to Bolor, make Bolor a disambiguation page for Balawaristan, Bolor-Tagh and the ancient microstates (which we don't have an article for, but can link to History of Gilgit-Baltistan). I feel the article "Balawaristan" is too politically focused to warrant a redirect from a non-political term. --Voidvector (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Voidvector. That is an excellent idea. (As to why I filed the AfD at all, apprehensive of political landmines obviously.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the article Balawaristan or viceversa, both articles are describing the same historical region, as Baloristan is an alternate spelling for Balawaristan.--Kazmi ¹¹²² 9:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Merge, and arguably close this AfD early. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:04, 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 keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Valentino

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

Doesn’t meet WP:NPROF. Also WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:SOAPBOX, this article is supposed to be a biography, but the article seems mostly about promoting his views on Communist mass killings, so it is more a content fork of Mass killings under communist regimes, than a biography. Move most of the content to that article per WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:SOAPBOX, then delete per WP:NPROF. Nug (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nug (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR due to multiple reviews of his books. Citations are quite high for the field, which would satisfy NPROF on its own. If you object to the content, the correct response is to fix the article rather than delete it. (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is not going to be deleted as the subject is obviously notable, I suggest withdrawing the nomination. (t · c) buidhe 22:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable and well sourced. Some sections could be re-written or moved but still is notable. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets NACADEMIC. The Ace in Spades (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
Keep, per reasons by those given above who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as pointed out by buidhe, they meet WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hashim Ubale Yusufu

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

G11 borderline article for a non notable politician who doesn’t satisfy WP:NPOL or satisfy WP:GNG as they do not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. The only source used in the article is a self published unreliable opinion piece. A before search did show this other source but it does next to nothing to substantiate notability claims. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed political candidate does not meet WP:NPOL. The Pharmaceutical Society of Nigeria is not a notable enough organization to merit notability for its members. Bkissin (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a failed political candidate whose other positions do not give notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they meet neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:01, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alban Chela (music producer)

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

Non notable DJ who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them & do not satisfy any criterion from WP:DIRECTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This DJ has been featured on ALBANIA's well known TV Channel and won in Top awardsTop Channel. I feel like this DJ is notable from Albania. I also believe this artist meets one or more criteria under MUSICBIO. Which is, he has been charted no.1 in Albania's biggest TV Show "Top channel" and the artist has over 1M+ listeners in Spotify (as per my investigation)

Delete does not meet any of our actual notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I actually believe this artist meet one or few criteria in music category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.74.158 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMUSIC. We almost always delete articles about DJs and music producers, because they tend to be run of the mill. The coverage for this person is especially marginal. I see a fan believes that they are notable, but a !vote without an explanation is useless. So I did some searches. On Google news, there are seven Ghits, all to EDM, which appears to be a blog about Electronic dance music and a source of dubious reliability. I found zero newspaper articles and one Spotify listing in books. He has 129 (actual N, not thousands) followers on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, Bearian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.74.158 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 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 merge to List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters. I just chose List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters as an option for merging. Please discuss the proposed merger on the appropriate talk page. See Wikipedia:Merging for guidance. Missvain (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Filippelli (fictional character)

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

Article is almost entirely made of a plot summary, falling under WP:PLOTONLY. Out of its 17 references, 15 are primary sources, one is a "Best Characters" list, and the last one could be seen as opinion-based, failing WP:GNG. This AFD has also created per this suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Filippelli was that this topic did not justify a stand alone article and should redirect to List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters#Karen Filippelli (t · c) buidhe 20:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And see at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reception section (otherwise inadequate for stand-alone article due to being based on listicles/passing mentions) to whatever list she is mentioned in then redirect the article there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per consensus. But in the future, don't nominate articles just because the writing/sourcing is bad. "It's all plot" goes against writing policy, but it's hardly a criteria for deletion on its own. Same goes for poor sourcing, or even no sourcing if coverage exists. You have been notified of this before, but the quality of sources in the article doesn't determine WP:GNG. Dark knight 2149 04:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough sourcing that in indepdent of the show itself to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per consensus Spudlace (talk)
Restore merge per last AFD cited by buidhe. The subject doesn't have significant coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG, but the merge was satisfactory within our guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello all, I am the creator of this article. I created it because I felt that Karen Filippelli was an important character on The Office and felt that there was enough information to create an article about her. However, I realize that the article may not be written well enough. If you all feel that it should be deleted or redirected to List of The Office (U.S. TV series) characters#Karen Filippelli, I understand. Fiscus Brady!! (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the reception section as stated above, the subject itself fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Miano

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They pass WP:NACTOR. They had significant roles in The Funeral and Donnie Brasco, as well as The Book of Daniel (although granted that is a film which barely passes WP:NFILM). He also had significant roles in China Girl, Open House, Midnight, The Last Hour, Laws of Deception, Luckytown, Dungeons & Dragons, and An Act of War. There might be others, but I think that's enough to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:17, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inertia (anxiety)

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

Delete per 6, 7, and 8 and as meaningless or unsupport-ed/-able under its current title, and also per 6 as an unsupportable neologism under the proposed move title.

This page was created as a 600-byte stub in 2012, growing to 3.6kb with four references (e.g., rev. 992527804) and then became listed recently as an assigned topic for this Wiki Ed course. The assigned Wiki Ed student performed a page move which was reverted. The student then created a properly formatted move request (here) which is currently active. The move request proposes "Autistic inertia" as the new title.

This deletion request concerns both topics:

Inertia (anxiety) (the current topic) – not clear what this even is. No reliable references since 2012.
Autistic inertia (the move request target) – this is a neologism from a single paper from 25 November 2020 (Buckle et al. 2020; result #2 in this search). It's not even published yet, it's merely a preprint.

There are endless blogs and community websites which do contain the term. However, the title "Autistic inertia" has the look and feel of a syndrome or disorder, making it subject to WP:MEDRS. If the intention is to keep this article outside the stricter referencing required by MEDRS, say, an article about the characteristics or nature of autistic people, then it should be given a descriptive title of that nature, and not one that looks like a medical topic. My guess is there isn't sufficient reliable information for a stand-alone article even for that, and that the Autism article might be able to have some content added to it about the topic.

Some complicating issues:

the state of referencing was awful; I reduced the 3kb article to a sentence (with one, poor reference retained).
another editor has since tagged it for revdel due to plagiarism still present in the article history.
creator AutisticMan (talk · contribs) not notified (they are an indeffed sock)

There is nothing worth merging anywhere; the RM target is a non-notable neologism; this article should be deleted. Mathglot (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Keep and move to a broader title under mental health. A very quick book and scholar search seems to bring it up as more a general mental health topic as it being related to having the initial effort to overcome a struggle. Even Freud seems to have commented on it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Autistic inertia. A google scholar search reveals academic publications about the phenonemon, such as here where they describe it as a common topic in autistic circles, and open discussion here, where it merits an index item and here. This presentation from an academic researcher states the term has been used since 2001 at least, and this recent doctorate states "Autistic inertia has been discussed by autistic advocates (M. Sparrow, 2016; Sullivan, 2002; van de Wettering, 2010)but has scarcely received attention in the empirical literature". So it's a thing, and academics publishing in oversighted sources are saying it's a thing, although it is only recently being given more serious research attention.OsFish (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Extra comment: Having re-read the proposal, I would like to emphasise in bold that Autistic inertia is not a neologism in a 2020 paper. Thus, a key premise of the deletion move is not true.OsFish (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The table of contents for this book: Bogdashina, Olʹga. Sensory perceptual issues in autism and asperger syndrome : different sensory experiences - different perceptual worlds. Casanova, Manuel F. (Second ed.). London. ISBN 978-1-78450-179-2. OCLC 939265330. suggests that it's a type of Executive functions deficit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 5 lists " 'Inertia' (executive function deficits)" (single-quotes in the original) as one of eight "Cognitive Styles" covered in the chapter.^[1] The ToC is on page 7 and the content on p. 116. Mathglot (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inertia is a natural state as it takes energy to make changes (especially on Wikipedia). In the context of autism, this is done better at analysis paralysis. I don't think a redirect is appropriate as the current content is too flimsy and the title too vague. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The available sourcing is too weak. "Autistic inertia" is not a term in widespread use (not even that widespread on forums) and has too little coverage in WP:RS, no WP:MEDRS to be seen. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been a clinical psychologist for 30 years and I have never heard of a disorder called "inertia"; there is no such listing in DSM-5 or ICD-11; and as Mathglot has explained in painstaking (albeit concise) detail, this alleged disorder/problem/condition (whatever you want to call it) lacks a logical foundation, including references to the scholarly literature. This article is an embarrassment and a sad example of our tendency to protect silly articles that should have never been published simply because they've languished on Wikipedia for a few years. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Markworthen, I wonder whether you have any further thoughts on whether this is a phenomenon some people experience, so that it could be "a thing", even though it's not "a disorder". There are many subjects that are not listed in the DSM-5 or ICD-11 and that are often rather vaguely or imprecisely defined and have no single logical foundation, but that I still think belong in Wikipedia (e.g., Love, Self-denial, Altruism, Charity (practice), Prayer – for that matter, we have trouble even coming up with a single, universal, logically consistent definition of Woman). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, WhatamIdoing. Thank you. Although this article should be deleted, it would certainly be appropriate (and helpful) to discuss the concept of "emotional inertia" in the Anxiety article. It's a relatively new hypothesized construct, but it has garnered some serious research.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at McHusky's advice, I'm thinking that the best option might be a redirect to Anxiety (or another similar article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support that proposal. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The original article was basically just poorly sourced plagiarism, to be sure. "Inertia (anxiety)" is unsaveable as far as I can tell, since there's really just nothing there, and explicitly linking it with anxiety disorders would have to violate WP:NOR, since there's nothing to be found that even meets basic reliability standards, let alone medical standards. If we tried to save it, it would have to be moved to Autistic Inertia and it would need some serious improvements to sourcing. Unfortunately, it appears that there isn't much for scholarly sources, and there isn't anything that meets WP:MEDRS, for sure. (I still think something should be done for the topic, and that might mean a redirect could be useful, but I'll put that in the discussion section) --McHusky (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above 4 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above editors. Arsonxists (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I'm all for keeping the article if the sources demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but that requires evidence that meets the GNG test of Notability. To date, the links provided above in a couple of the keep !votes above make claims which do not hold up under scrutiny. The following claims are made:

"A very quick book and scholar search seems to bring it up as more a general mental health topic..."
No, they don't. There is nothing in those results that supports a claim of notability. In the book search, results 3, 4, and 5 have false positives with intervening punctuation like commas, or are parts of two sentences. None of the top ten book results contain the term. In the Scholar search, one result is relevant: the 25 November Buckle paper that I already linked at the top; it is the only one, and the authors themselves call it out as a neologism as far as its first appearance in a journal.
"A google scholar search reveals academic publications about the phenonemon, such as here ..."
This is not an academic publication, it is a preprint, and it is the 'download link' version of the same preprint I identified in the Afd statement at the top as a "paper from 25 November 2020". It's not surprising someone else would find it again, as it is the only academic result from Scholar that is remotely a match. The authors recognize it as a neologism, stating: "This study... is the first to explore 'autistic inertia'..."; with autistic inertia in double quotes.
"...and open discussion here..."
This links (Conn, 2019), and has one passing mention on page 28, referencing this 2013 unstrangemind blog post.
"This presentation from an academic researcher..."
There is in fact a web page with an abstract at that address, belonging to University of Kent Academic Repository. The web page identifies itself as an "unpublished" paper, and provides this full-text download link which is a dead link to a 2019 blog post of the PDA Society.
"this recent doctorate states..."
This thesis is entitled, "Understanding executive function in young autistic people: moving from the lab to the everyday", and contains the term "autistic inertia" three times: twice in footnotes (naming unstrangemind blog again—small world), and once in the body of the 303 page thesis, in particular, the "...has been discussed..." sentence already quoted above.
"Extra comment: ...Autistic inertia is not a neologism in a 2020 paper."
Technically, you're right; the term appears in numerous autism blogs and discussion boards, and has for a long time. But since Notability depends on reliable sources, and not SPSes, by "neologism" I was thinking about published academic papers. I haven't been able to find any academic reference before 25 November 2020, and the authors themselves state that that was the first time it has appeared in a study. Sorry about any confusion regarding what I meant by neologism—I meant printed appearance.

I don't dispute that there are blogs with discussions on the topic, but that is not enough. So far, I haven't found even one reliable, independent source with significant coverage that would support notability of this topic, and we'd need more than one. Mathglot (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think something should be done for this topic, and it would be shame to ignore it despite its clear and strong presence as a subject of discussion in the autism community. Does anyone know what the standard or guideline is for counting things as "biomedical" or not? This topic is admittedly close to that line, whatever it is, but I think there's a strong case to be made for this topic having a mention somewhere in Wikipedia, given the degree to which it's discussed in the autism community—it's discussed so much that it actually has gotten attention to the point of being thoroughly described in published scholarly research (Welch, 2020),^[6] as well as directly investigated by unpublished research (Buckle)^[7] (I know that's not a valid source, but my point is just that it's enough of "a thing" to warrant at least a mention somewhere on Wikipedia). No one's claiming that this is a medical disorder itself, and insofar as it may be a potential "symptom" of autism spectrum disorder, there's insufficient material that meets WP:MEDRS. That said, I believe that insofar as it's a significant phenomenon and topic of discussion in the autism community, we have the sources for that.

Still, even then I'm unsure if there are really the sources necessary to support an entire page for that. It also could appear to be more medical than it really is, if simply put on its own page. Being in context on a page and clearly labeled as "a not scientifically/medically verified phenomenon and common topic of discussion within the autism community" could be enough to keep it out of the purview of medical sourcing standards. If anyone has ideas for where that could go, I'm all ears (eyes?). Executive dysfunction and Societal and cultural aspects of autism stand out to me as potential places, although the former may be a bit too "medical" in context, so I'm unsure if it would even matter how strongly I disclaim the medical validity of the term. Either way, could it be worth keeping the Inertia (anxiety) page as a redirect to whatever might manifest for Autistic Inertia?

(A couple notes: I'm the Wiki Ed student that was assigned this article. I'm not personally invested in keeping it around or anything, but I do think this is a great opportunity to get rid of this problematic article and instead represent this topic in a more appropriate fashion elsewhere on Wikipedia. Also, apologies for any formatting problems—I'm new to editing here, let alone on AfD pages). --McHusky (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@McHusky:, you're a new editor, and you're doing fine, learning the ropes much faster than average, so don't worry too much about formatting. This discussion should concentrate on the Afd question, as you did above. Other questions, such as,

Does anyone know what the standard or guideline is for counting things as "biomedical" or not?

are good ones, but not relevant here. If you would bring that up elsewhere, and {{ping}} me, I will answer it. (Normally I'd say, ask it on the article talk page, but since it may disappear, that's not a good venue. You can ask on your own Talk page, on my Talk page, or even at WT:MED.) Btw, you have a great attitude, and you'd be a good addition to the project; I hope you decide to stay on after your course is over. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wrt where to put such information, Societal and cultural aspects of autism doesn't seem like the right place (how is it either societal, or cultural? Inertia could manifest entirely alone, couldn't it?) but what about something at Autism spectrum#Behavioral characteristics? Mathglot (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson mentioned Analysis paralysis above, and that looks like another potential merge/redirect target (not that there's much available to merge, but there isn't any particular need to delete it if we're just going to re-create the page as a redirect, either). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see this as necessarily associated with autism or even with psyhopathology; it's part of the human personality. There's an imense literaturee on various aspects going back for centuries DGG ( talk ) 10:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC) . .[reply]

@DGG: It looks like your comment may have been truncated on either end; as a result it isn't clear if you wished to express a !vote, or what your central point was. Can you review? Thx. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

thanks for notifying me , one my my macros malfunctioned. I fixed it. It's a basic but general concept, comonly found in a great many people. "Autistic inertia" would be a special use, which I wasn;t previously aware of, andwould need a separate article if valid. As an example of what the article should betalking about, I have an great deal of reluctance to start dealing with the flood of promotionalism every day at WP, or , in the Real World, before starting the laundry. and I typically call this inertia. I don't think it has anything to do with any autistic tendencies, but just the human relutance to start a large and endless task. I use the word, while knowing perfectly well it is completely different from the physical concept. Is there anyone here who has not used it that way?

Comment I support merging or adding new content about this topic to Autism spectrum#Behavioral characteristics. Based on the discussion, there seems to be agreement that the current article as written has problems that that could be fixed through selective merging. Spudlace (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Olga Bogdashina (1 January 2003). "5. Cognitive Styles". Sensory Perceptual Issues in Autism and Asperger Syndrome: Different Sensory Experiences, Different Perceptual Worlds. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-84310-166-6. OCLC 939265330. Another problem autistic people are reported to experience is 'inertia' (Dekker 1999)—difficulty in starting and planning the task. But once they start, they find it hard to stop until they finish., citing: Dekker, Martijn, ON OUR OWN TERMS: Emerging autistic culture (PDF), p. 8, archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-06-25, retrieved 2020-12-06, Inertia. Many autistic members of InLv* find that they have a particular difficulty that we usually call "inertia". At first sight it looks like laziness: the inertial person has problems getting started with things, such as doing housework, filling in tax forms, or writing a paper for Autism99, even if the motivation to do it is present. It may also be that he ends up doing something different than planned, because this was easier to get started with than the originally planned task. But on the other hand, when the inertial person does manage to get started with something, it is hard to stop again; normal sleeping times are not observed and he gets irritable if interrupted because he is completely immersed in the activity that he finally managed get started with. One InLv member compared himself to a steamroller: 'I'm a slow starter, but get out of the way once I'm rolling!'. Inertia can thus have its advantages if one manages to use it to one's advantage. The topic of inertia tends to return periodically in the group discussion and always generates plenty of 'me too' responses; it seems it's an almost universal trait of people on the autistic spectrum. It has been shown to be very important to one's self-esteem to distinguish inertia from laziness. Inertia and laziness can co-exist in the same person, but they are not the same and do not feel the same either. * [Note: InLv – 'Independent Living on the Autistic Spectrum', a mailing list set up in 1996 by Dekker to replace an old, dialup BBS.]
^ Kuppens, Peter; Allen, Nicholas B.; Sheeber, Lisa (2010). "Emotional inertia and psychological maladjustment". Psychological science. 21 (7): 984–991. doi:10.1177/0956797610372634. ISSN 0956-7976. PMC 2901421. PMID 20501521.
^ Kuppens, Peter; Oravecz, Zita; Tuerlinckx, Francis (2010). "Feelings change: Accounting for individual differences in the temporal dynamics of affect" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 99 (6): 1042–1060. doi:10.1037/a0020962. ISSN 1939-1315.
^ Bornas, Xavier; Noguera, Miquel; Pincus, David; Buela-Casal, Gualberto (2014). "Emotional inertia: A key to understanding psychotherapy process and outcome". International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 14 (3): 232–239. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.03.001. ISSN 1697-2600.
^ Bornas, Xavier; de la Torre-Luque, Alejandro; Fiol-Veny, Aina; Balle, Maria (2017). "Trajectories of anxiety symptoms in adolescents: Testing the model of emotional inertia". International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 17 (2): 192–196. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.01.002. ISSN 1697-2600.
^ Welch, Christie; Cameron, Deb; Fitch, Margaret; Polatajko, Helene (2020-02-25). "Living in autistic bodies: bloggers discuss movement control and arousal regulation". Disability and Rehabilitation: 1–9. doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1729872. ISSN 0963-8288.
^ Buckle, Karen Leneh; Leadbitter, Kathy; Poliakoff, Ellen; Gowen, Emma (2020-11-25). ""No way out except from external intervention": First-hand accounts of autistic inertia". doi:10.31234/osf.io/ahk6x. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked and am not finding anything to support notability for this term as used. Jeepday (talk) 14:54, 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. Missvain (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Ego

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

This is the page for a (mainly covers) band made up of various musicians who have previously been in other, better-known bands. None of the current or former members has their own WP page, and even if they did, notability is not inherited. Unless I've missed something, their gigs have been support slots for better-known bands or on small stages at big multiple-stage events such as Pride festivals. Their recordings have been either on minor labels or self-released on Bandcamp. None of the cited sources demonstrate significant, third-party coverage: they're either streaming/download sites or social media, and I've been unable to find any other coverage which would pass WP:NBAND.
Also bundling the band's recordings:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, you obviously didn't read the article properly, as the band only started out with mostly covers... They have since changed the direction of their music, releasing original material. So your branding of them as a (mostly covers) band is not only inaccurate, but ignorant, given their number of original songs is greater than the number of covers that they have recorded.

Their current label is not a 'minor label'... Having been around since 1995, and having many notable acts in their rosta, Out of Line Music would be classed as an independent label, by Wikipedia's classification WP:NBAND Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). They have released two albums and an EP with Out of Line Music.
They have played the main stage at festivals, not just small stages:

They also have been the headline act, including their double headline tour earlier this year with Ashbury Heights, where both acts were headliners. The second half of the tour, which would have taken place later in the year, was cancelled on account of the Covid-19 pandemic.
They have had multiple articles and interviews in Germany's Sonic Seducer and Orkus magazines. The latest being:

https://www.facebook.com/massiveego/posts/10157162412587315

Alinblack (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any more reliable sources available? As per WP:RS, we try to avoid using Facebook as a reference for notability. Spiderone 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The information has since been removed from the Schattenwelt website, as most festival websites tend to focus on promoting whats upcoming, as opposed to the festivals that have already taken place. So the original information as to the bands who played the main stages is no longer there, and only seems to exist in any form of chronology through Facebook posts, which makes referencing difficult.

https://afterdark.co/events/london/electrowerkz/static-darkness-halloween-festival - That has information as to the bands that have played, but not which stages they were on.
https://www.amphi-festival.de/2019/bands.html - This shows they were on the second largest stage at Amphi Festival 2019 (One of the largest festivals for Goth/Electronic music)
https://www.amphi-festival.de/2017/bands.html - This shows they played on the main stage two years prior in 2017.
https://www.meraluna.de/en/info/history/ - This shows they played at M'era Luna Festival in 2018 (Another of the largest festivals for Goth/Electronic music) but does not state which stage they played

Alinblack (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And are there any sources that provide significant coverage of the band (i.e. more than just a passing mention in a concert listing)? Spiderone 09:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles are in Sonic Seducer and Orkus magazines, rather than online. I found a link to an article on the Sonic Seducer website, and it also mentions of an interview the band did in one of the magazines previous issues:

https://sonic-seducer.de/index.php/de/3452-massive-ego-neuer-song-aus-der-feder-von-boy-george-album-mitte-februar.html

This link from Orkus magazines website mentions of the interview that was referred to in one of the links I provided from a facebook post that shows a photograph of the interview in the magazine. The link t Orkus also shows the bands name on the front cover in one of the pictures.

There are also a number of pictures of interviews from magazines and newspapers on the bands website, as well as links to some interviews on various sites:

http://www.massiveego.co.uk/press.html

Also, I'd like to reiterate the point I made previously about them having released two albums on a notable independent label which by Wikipedia's classification WP:NBAND (See #5) is enough for the article to be deemed notable. Alinblack (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep band article, merge album articles into it. As stated by previous user, band article passes WP:BAND "Has released two or more albums on ... one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." (Beautiful Suicide and Church for the Malfunctioned both on Out of Line Music.)

Not so certain of individual notability of releases. Best to merge this data into the main article to make one long piece.Romomusicfan (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (Voter since unmasked as sockpuppet)~~DELETE: fails SIGCOV. The Ace in Spades (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

@The Ace in Spades: Main band article passes WP:SNG WP:BAND as detailed above - an SNG has equal standing with the GNG.
(to quote WP:N "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets EITHER the general notability guideline below, OR the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline ....) Romomusicfan (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this nominated for deletion? Even if the band has released some stuff on Bandcamp, they have records released on labels. They don't appear to be a "minor" labels. Even if they are minor labels, who cares? They still appear to be notable. The labels themselves are connected to many bands which have Wiki articles. Should we delete those too? HocusPocus00 (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep band article, merge album articles into it. Keep the band article as per the coverage in reliable German sources discussed above but merge the album and song articles into the band article as there is not enough coverage for those to be stand alone articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Would suggest redirects to the band page be implemented on all the album/song articles. This way content on these articles is preserved so it can be imported into the main band page at leisure. Romomusicfan (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the band passes WP:NBAND. I also agree that the albums need to be redirected to the band, as none appear to pass WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comment - I am closing this as keep, feel free to discuss merging the albums (I agree about doing that) on their talk pages per WP:MERGE. Thanks everyone.

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Njeru

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO as I was unable to find any in-depth coverage about the individual that would satisfy WP:RS. CNMall41 (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability in the article, nothing showing notability found. Jeepday (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - successful, but non-notable businessman, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 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. AFD is for deleting articles, not discussing improvements, mergers or renames. Feel free to discuss those on the talk page of the article. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland (July–December 2020)

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

Pointless split of article. It needs trimming to remove daily counts and just show significant points in the timeline rather than splitting. This needs merging back to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland (January–June 2020) and renamed back to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland. noq (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Absolutely rubbish. This is seriously such a bad reason to delete the article... The idea of splitting the article → Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland to two separate articles → Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland (January–June 2020) and Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland (July–December 2020) is the right decision made by User:Love of Corey. The daily counts of cases, deaths, de-notified cases, de-notified deaths and probable deaths are there for a reason. They must be there and will be there until this pandemic is over.

Many COVID-19 articles also include daily counts on their timeline section, for example the timeline section of the COVID-19 pandemic in Jamaica article. They're timeline section includes daily counts along with significant points as well, and so they're article size is very long because of this.

I strongly believe that this article should not be deleted. Daily counts should not be deleted. If deleted, all good faith edits contributed by myself and other fellow Irish Wikipedians editing will be deleted which is a terrible thing to do. I strongly believe that this article and the January–June article should not be deleted and should remain the same. Edl-irishboy (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of an over reaction there. Bearing in mind WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTNEWS, what is the enduring encyclopaedic value of day by day totals? If they are absolutely needed, then a table would suffice and no need for an article split. Why must they remain and why only until the pandemic is over, if they are not needed after then why have them now? noq (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did overreact a bit there. I didn't mean that after the pandemic is over, these articles will be deleted. The reason for this spit is because, in accordance with WP:SPLIT, the length of the original article was extremely long, so it was split into two different articles. Never mind about the daily counts, because I think that's irrelevant to this discussion at the moment. The COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland article has been split into 4 different articles already, because of the length and size of the original article. It was split first from the original timeline section to the Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland article, then to the Social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland article, then to the Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland article, and finally the split to the two timeline articles. From my understanding, the split of the timeline articles is in accordance with WP:SPLIT. Edl-irishboy (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AfD is not for bickering about a structural split by date; it's for deletion discussions. The appropriate processes are at WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE. I looked to see whether there 's any discussion on the talk pages for these timeline articles and couldn't find anything. The closest seems to be at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Splitting_the_article_ideas, which is a higher level still. The final form of these pages must naturally wait upon the passage of time when the topic is better understood and there's some historical perspective. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I only created the article WP:BOLDly out of WP:SIZE concerns for the original timeline article, but if an immediate trimming solution can be figured out, I'm all in for it. Otherwise, we could just wait until the pandemic winds down before we figure this out. Love of Corey (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I presume that the mentioned reason is not great enough for the deletion of the article. The plausible problems of the article can be removed by keeping "Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Ireland (July–December 2020)". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP: naturally meets SIGCOV and passes the NCTEST The Ace in Spades (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banga (newspaper)

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

Unsourced stub, ten years old. The only edits after creation seem to be vandalism by IPs. $\color {blue}\chi$ _chi (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.

\color {blue}\chi

_chi (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is long past time we stopped tolerating any unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Johnpacklambert Your argument for deletion is in conflict with WP:ARTN "'Article content does not determine notability'", when you use this argument, it devalues your position and your vote. Jeepday (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Verrifiability means that all things should be sourced. That trumps this vague claim that we should not judge articles by what they say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Johnpacklambert: While all things should be sourced, per WP:BEFORE C.1 "'If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.'" The question at Afd is: is the subject of the article notable? While WP:V "'All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material'" is about the content of the article. Removal of unreferenced material must be balanced against WP:PAGEBLANKING. Jeepday (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing indicating notability in the article, there are no foreign language versions of the article, My search for references was inconclusive, but I was not able to find anything to clearly shows the subject is notable. Jeepday (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Abandoned, no foreign versions, one sentence, no citations. There don't seem to be any reliable sources supporting this newspaper's existence. Scrooge200 (talk) 22:01, 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. czar 22:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus View, California

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

A name taken off some random map and applied to what used to be a farm field and is now apparently salt-ruined. NOt even clear there was any such place, but it certainly wasn't here, so this is a huge GNG fail. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the GNIS entry isn't even sourced to the topos, that's a bad sign. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 17:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and almost definitely fails WP:GEOLAND as well Spiderone 18:30, 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 speedy keep. Missvain (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oonsie Biggs

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

Fails GNG; WP:NACADEMIC - no individual notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure if the South African Research Chair would qualify for WP:PROF#C5 or not, I'd need to be more familiar with the academic system in that country. But I think an h-index of 48 with many of more highly cited papers having only 2-3 authors with the subject as first or last author [1] should be sufficient for WP:PROF#C1 MoneciousTriffid (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a highly cited research from Clarivate - see https://recognition.webofscience.com/awards/highly-cited/2020/ WP:PROF#C1, as well as being co-director of PECS, an international science network (again meeting the criteria). Furthermore, she already has an article about here German wikipedia - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinette_Biggs. ChthonicRailway (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of this article meets WP:NPROF criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is highly cited enough to pass WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The highest cited papers in her profile have a very large number of coauthors, but moving beyond these, I think there's plenty for WP:NPROF C1. Comment that the article should be moved (w redirect) after AfD to Reinette Biggs, as this seems to be the name that she publishes under. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:22, 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) 23:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Colclough

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

Not notable academic. Fails GNG; WP:NACADEMIC. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before I cut it down, there was enough promotion going on here for me to wonder if this is some kind of paid or blatantly promotional editing. I removed something like nine external links in the body of the article. At the moment, I have to go with delete as the article is entirely made up of biography pages and has no RS coverage. Ping me if four independent and in-depth sources get added to the article.Possibly (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. FYI This article is totally unpaid and was created as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/AI Ethics, focusing to increase the representation of women in AI ethics field in Wikipedia. Instead to delete, I would suggest to help to improve it. Dr.Colclough is a worldwide recoglized AI Ethics expert.Volha 15 December 2020
- As far as I can see, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/AI Ethics is not actually a multi-person project, but just you making yourself look like a project. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  From the list of articles created by the 1-person WikiProject, Aleksandra Mojsilovic is the only one where notability looks likely to me (assuming the IEEE fellow can be properly referenced). Maria Axente is currently up elsewhere at AfD, and many of the other articles likely should be. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP: meets NACADEMIC The Ace in Spades (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete. She has ~~one paper with a modest number of citations, but~~ not enough impact apparent for WP:NPROF C1. I see no signs of the other NPROF criteria, nor other signs of notability. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2012 PhD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... and the one paper I saw with moderate citations was actually from another author. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A different person, Christopher Colclough, has heavy citations published under the name "C. Colclough", making it difficult to find the subject's contributions in Google Scholar, but searching for author:cj-colclough appears to find hers only. If that is accurate, she has only single-digit citation counts, far below the standard for WP:PROF#C1. And we have no evidence of GNG-level notability through in-depth coverage of her in multiple independent published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I fixed a couple of typos. No opinion yet on the substance. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of impact on world of scholarship that would pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima I. Haruna

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

Fails GNG. Likely paid contribution by ghost editor who came out of nowhere to create seemingly flawless WP pages. Stood up on puff pieces; paid editorials. Simply not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore yes! Just as Alexandermcnabb already stated in his Del rationale this is blatant UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE: fails BASIC. The Ace in Spades (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete a non-notable chef.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Chelsea Bridge Club

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

Seems totally unnotable. Sources in article are related to sports clubs that this club have partnered with and don't define notability for this. Only source to ever cover this sports club has been a passing mention (one sentence) in the Spectator news. ser! (let's discuss it). 13:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ser! (let's discuss it). 13:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable per NORG/GNG. At best deserves a mention in passing in some list or body of text about local initatives. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gopichand Jasoos

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2012. The InterWiki links gave no other source. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only the press pack and a passing mention. A search for the Hindi title गोपीचंद जासूस fared no better. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has been rarely edited since creation. -Cupper52 (talk) 15;59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment by nom to Cupper52. That is no argument. Some of my articles have rarely been edited since creation. I like to think that's because I did a good job. It's as bad an argument as "this article has been viewed x thousand timwa in the last 30 days, therefore the topic is notable". Narky Blert (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and certainly WP:SIGCOV among many others. No citations. No different than every other Hindu movie. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 16:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reviews of an acceptable length nor any sign of meeting any other criteria listed at WP:NFILM; no obvious redirect or merge target available Spiderone 13:59, 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. Keeping this - please discuss mergers and changing of scope on the appropriate talk page. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motor racing career of Fernando Alonso

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

This is a weird creation that substantially duplicates an already extensive existing biography. Other drivers don't have this sort of coverage Pipsally (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change scope - a WP:SPINOFF of the whole career of Alonso is silly, given that is what he is known for. However, we could consider a spinoff of Formula One career of Fernando Alonso (like we have with Formula One career of Lewis Hamilton).
SSSB (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change scope/Keep - agree that the topic of this article is too broad. Alonso's article would be too long if all of this one was merged into it, but I definitely think the parts of this article which aren't related to F1 and are missing from his article should be put there, and vis-versa for the F1 bits of his main article to this one, if that is what is decided. It would be a shame to lose the added detail of this article especially regarding his non-F1 racing which is lacking in his main article. Also, I'm not sure I understand why Fernando Alonso#Karting career is a separate section to "motor racing" but that isn't overly relevant to this discussion.

Alternatively I think just keep this article and merge anything relevant from his main article as mentioned above. Either way, I don't think deleting or a full merge would work as the main article is already quite long. A7V2 (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fernando Alonso. The only thing this person is notable for is their motor racing career so the only reason to have this article is as a WP:POVFORK. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:44, 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 merge to Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers. Consensus that this topic is not notable (unless in-depth sources can be found). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Stationers' Prize

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

This seems very niche and with coverage being passing mentions or not independent. Geschichte (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could merge to Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers; their prize. Could see this kept if better sources found though. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merger seems sensible. The prize is not really notable in its own right. Rathfelder (talk) 11:06, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misdiagnosis Association and Research Institute (MARI)

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

Fails notability guidelines; no reference to this in RS. This organization is not even launched yet, WP:crystalball. May qualify for CSD G11 Habiliment (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an advert without any references. Rathfelder (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability cannot be established. All content is self-generated (e.g. YouTube). The website linked to the article doesn't exist. Can be revisited if notability becomes more defined. JFW | T@lk 14:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sources to pass either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References fail to clear the hurdle of WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, or WP:ORGDEPTH. The article itself is irrevocably promotional; requiring a rebuild from the ground up if we were to try for an article in the future. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 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 redirect to IB Diploma Programme. Consensus that this topic is not notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended essay

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

This is a type of essay that students write for a specific exam. Sourced exclusively to WP:SPS for what looks like over ten years. jp×g 09:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. jp×g 09:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. jp×g 09:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a mechanical drive-by nomination of an article that existed for over 10 years because it has existed for over 10 years. It points out a problem with the article but it doesn't appear that the nominator has made any effort to fix this. Now, it's our explicit policy that articles may be imperfect and 99% of our 6+ million articles are less than good. The supposed problem here seems trivially easy to fix. If sources are wanted then just consult the numerous academic papers such as The influence of student learning characteristics on progress through the extended essay: A component of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme or Student perceptions of the value of the International Baccalaureate extended essay in preparing for university studies. See WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SOFIXIT. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because it's existed for ten years with bad sources -- it's because better sources do not seem to exist. You mention two research papers (which have 33 citations between the both of them), but not a reason why one component of the exam warrants a separate article from the rest of the exam (there are not separate articles for the SAT essay, the AP exam essay, or ACT essay, for example). The reason I mention that its content was cribbed entirely from SPS is to note that the article isn't the product of researching and bringing together independent coverage; it's someone retyping a product brochure into Wikipedia. This is not even a case of "a very effortfully-written article going to the dogs because it failed GNG"; there's not much to merge into the main International Baccalaureate article, and even the sources you've provided would do better there than in an attempt at a standalone article. jp×g 13:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IB Diploma Programme. There are no good independent sources cited in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IB Diploma Programme. It's not our place to provide the rubric for a component of a curriculum, sourced only to the curriculum's website. All of the IB articles e.g. IB Group 5 subjects have the same problem and should be trimmed and merged too. Reywas92^Talk 01:25, 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Banner

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

Non-notable dressmaker. Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "In a notable incident, one of her hand-made dresses was poorly copied and sold by an online company for a fraction of the cost that Banner made it."??? Just no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wired seems to consider it important enough to write much of an article on. I agree the phrasing is poor (the incident itself isn't notable by Wikipedia's definition), but that doesn't mean that it's not encyclopedic information. Gbear605 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is an acknowledged expert in her field and has a substantial following. They therefore pass the spirit of guidelines such as WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An acknowledged sewing expert? Notable? Haha. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog, the field is not sewing but dress history. Gbear605 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what she does. She's skilled for a youngster, but not notable. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We need to look into the whole Youtuber notability to address all those gray areas of notability. But until then I think this should be deleted. Kolma8 (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as page creator. Easily meets WP:BASIC - has significant coverage in multiple published independent reliable sources. For a couple examples, see this interview (see the notability section at WP:INTERVIEW) and the coverage in this W article. There is more coverage in this article that I didn't include because I didn't want to spend time analyzing their policies, but upon further investigation they meet the requirements at WP:RELIABLE. There is more coverage elsewhere (for instance in Teen Vogue) that doesn't meet reliability guidelines but still suggests at notability. Gbear605 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging DGG as the AfC approver. Gbear605 (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm quite skeptical in this field, but we need to increase our coverage of the many people in the field who are actually notable -- our coverage in fashion is usually based on other considerations--as a rough guess I think at least half the articles in Category:Fashion biography stubs are either trivial or promotional. . I hesitated before approving this one, but she's probably notable as a costume historian, and Wired is a respectable source. In working with borderline AfCs the role of a reviewer is not to actually judge notability, because it's often possible to make a good argument in either direction, but only try to predict what AFD will do. I accepted on the basis that most borderline articles about people on the web with more than one Wired source seem to be usually kept at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that this page is valid for keeping because her notability does not only apply to YouTube but also to her current profession as a recognised dress historian and prior work as an assistant designer on Broadway. I believe that the page definitely needs a lot of work, and more information could be included (such as her prior Broadway work) to further exemplify her notability and the validity of the page, but I think that the pages' existence is perfectly valid. PunkAndromeda (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she is a notable historian in a niche that is seeing increasing amounts of attention in recent years. This study of historical attire is important; Banner studies it inside out, applies those methods, and imparts her knowledge to a large following. Enough coverage is in the article and it looks like more relevant coverage is above. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify for those who can't glean it, she meets GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anybody got any "policy-based" keep arguments? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Roxy the dog, is WP:BASIC not enough? Do you disagree that there is enough coverage? Gbear605 (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - BASIC says, - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" - so yes, I disagree, WP:BASIC is not satisfied. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Hyperallergic interview and the Mary Sue article are solely about Banner, and there is non trivial coverage of her in most of the other sources, including in Wired and the BBC. They're all independent reliable sources and together they easily prove notability. Gbear605 (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article easily passes WP:BASIC, especially with sources indicated by Gbear605. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the YouTube element is a red herring. It's simply a promotional channel, but with or without it, her work still has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I believe she's notable. StarM 00:45, 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 keep. – bradv🍁 06:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Li Ruigang

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Would even request speedy deletion. Lily Ding Li Xiang (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nomination was not properly transcluded onto log until 13 December 2020

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, he is very much notable businessman with a lot of media presence on the level of Jack Ma, Pony Ma and others. He has his own Britannica article. Kolma8 (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An article on a businessperson with a history of building multiple notable companies and interests ("Li, an English-speaking media mogul dubbed the Rupert Murdoch of the East" The Guardian, 2015) as well as of political appointment to a Shanghai position described as "roughly on par with the director of the Chief Executive’s Office in Hong Kong" (Hong Kong Economic Journal, 2017). I think the available references, as well as the rather basic Britannica entry, are sufficient for WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO criterion 3. AllyD (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator is nominating articles based on having same last name as username. Previously nominated a car company called Li Auto for deletion as well. Albertaont (talk) 19:24, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kayandee, California

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

I'm not seeing a way WP:GEOLAND is met here. Topos show a rail junction within Bakersfield itself. Newspapers.com has five hits for Kayandee, none of which are in California. Can only get the mostly useless snippet view for all of the Gbooks references, but they all appear to be either passing mentions in railroad materials or lists of place names. In addition to GEOLAND, WP:GNG does not seem to be met either. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I love how these non-places create whole communities on the Web... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete On top of everything else, this classic railroad place name doesn't appear on the topos until well after the area has been overrun by urbanization. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 17:05, 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) 21:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles Tsaltas

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

Non-notable person who fails in passing WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG; WP:NOTCV Best Alexandermcnabb (talk)
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another is a very long line of articles on a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not independent sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. Note that a few presentations form notable media have conflict with the subject, as people who work there in senior positions are also members of a Tsaltas' initiative (cf. this). The article is purely promotional, created by an account who is apparenty an WP:SPA with WP:COI (cf. their edits). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: his non-profit fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:00, 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) 23:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orita, California

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

Now Mesquite Cattle Feeders, but as this story explains, originally Orita Land and Cattle. Before that I found a reference to the "Orita yards", and topos show a second set of sidings below the one at Orita proper. Again, we're in the middle of the Imperial Valley ag area, and there's not a place here for a little town, but just a feed lot. Mangoe (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 17:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and almost definitely fails WP:GEOLAND as well Spiderone 18:29, 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. czar 22:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure (card game)

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

Not a notable card game. The one external link is about a completely different game. No references found, not on pagat.com . Created by the same author as the page at AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacon (card game). power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:48, 13 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) 23:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rico, California

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

It's a testimony to the climate there that, something over thirty years after the rails were taken up, you can still plainly see the layout of this siding in GMaps. And a 1953 aerial also shows it well, with two strings of cars sitting side by side, in the midst of the same fields, etc. that are there now, making it quite clear this wasn't a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 17:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one fails WP:GNG.--TerrellTrevon (talk) 18:06, 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 redirect to Salton City, California. As an WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truckhaven, California

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

A change of pace here, if only for the rather florid style of the article. And the second paragraph isn't entirely inaccurate, but here's what this source has to say: "Doc Beatty, an early settler, was instrumental in the road's creation, dragging a mule-drawn scraper through the badlands to the Truckhaven gas station to create the first rough road." And "early" here is the 1920s; the road in question was opened in 1930. So, yeah, Truckhaven was a truck stop, and that's what aerials show for the tiny cluster of buildings at the spot indicated by topos. I don't know when it went away but the spot is at the edge of the surreal desert/suburbia of Salton City. Mangoe (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone seems to think that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is just an essay he can dismiss, I see I will have to waste everyone else's time and mine: it's not a notable place under WP:GEOLAND or any other standard. But I think everyone could already figure that out. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not a reason to delete as WP:GEOLAND explains the alternative: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." In any case, it appears that this place is reasonably notable for its history, trail, geology, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "fails to advance any argument for deletion" as the nomination just seems to be a rambling account of the place. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No post office. Looking at old topos indicates that there were a few buildings at that location at one time. Newspapers.com mentions a cafe, Doc Beaty's trail work and some other non-notable articles (don't be confused by the Truckhaven gas station in Colusa County). The florid text certainly is a change, it looks like it was made by an editor with only three edits, so it should probably be reviewed and edited carefully. GBooks yields geothermal plans and links for the Truckhaven trail, but nothing about the Truckhaven community. I found no legal recognition, so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. The coverage is trivial and indicates that Truckhaven was a non-notable cafe so #2 of WP:GEOLAND is not met.

It was a cafe, here a link to a 1947 photo (US 99 is now known as SR 86 in that area). Cxbrx (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Salton City, California. It was once a truck stop that is now within the area of Salton City, and there's no other notability for it. Reywas92^Talk 01:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Salton City, California: per above. // Timothy :: talk 17:03, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ved Rahi

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

Fails WP:POV, WP:BLP issue. Non encyclopedic article. Layout etc donot seems ok. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough sourcing here to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:GNG and WP:TNT. Created by an Wikipedian who appeared in the Wild West days of 2006, and who stopped editing in 2007. Based on his IMDB listing, he seems to have been a writer of no importance who was given direction and production credits sometimes. Based on what I Googled, he appears to have written a book about writing, and published three books of short stories. I just spent an afternoon rescuing another article, and this needs a ton of work that seems to be a hopeless cause. Google searches reveal very wide but shallow coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. Tend to delete... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you read this article through and through, it is almost as if the writer of it was purposely adding comments to make it seem as if the subject passed WP:FILMMAKER or even WP:GNG, when in reality, this person fails multiple points in both. On top of it, this article cites zero references. It's overall an incredibly poorly written and incredibly poorly formatted article that should be deleted. Coreykai (talk) 14:54, 13 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. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Janajagruti Samiti

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

A minor fringe group with lack of detailed coverage. The group has not done or achieved anything remarkable. the Deccan Herald described this group as an "obscure ... small band of fanatics" Walrus Ji (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: enough coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly list a few remarkable ones, because I could not find. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3] etc for starters. Though these are not profiles of the organisation itself, but there are just too many mentions in WP:RS to pass GNG.ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links. As you admit yourself, these are not significant coverage or profiles of the organisation, the criteria of significant coverage for WP:GNG is not met here. Trivial coverage and passing mentions are not enough to claim the notability of the organisations. Please see for yourself the criteria explained at WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. It lacks the coverage needed for its own article. Walrus Ji (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Not notable with the press coverage. Making threats does not entitle an entity to notability or by extension an encyclopedia article. Vikram Vincent 06:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - news reports are not just passing mentions and if you click the "books" link at top of this page then you will see more refs to them. That one news source at one time described them as obscure is not a reason to delete when in fact there are numerous reports of them over a reasonably lengthy period and in various contexts. - Sitush (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the books too before nominating and they are all passing mentions of this org. --Walrus Ji (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying everything is a passing mention. I wonder if you understand the term? When a lot of reliable sources refer to the HJS in various contexts and describe what it is, the mentions may not be thousands of words but are nonetheless sufficient for our purposes. There are plenty of mainstream sources referring to them and it is reasonable to suppose that a reader of any one of those sources might want to delve further, which is a part of the reason Wikipedia exists. It is so long since I commented here without receiving a response from you that I nearly missed it, sorry. If you respond further, please try to ping me. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this interview? - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:, yes I understand and there is no need to attack me. Your link is an interview of the org leader. WP:Notability (organizations and companies)#Secondary sources clarifies that Interviews of executives are primary sources and (I quote from that link:) "Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability.". Org notability is lacking for an article. Perhaps a paragraph about the org in article Sangh Parivar should suffice. --Walrus Ji (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you feel under attack. You have less than 500 edits here, all since September, and it is quite unusual in my experience to see someone like you with such professed knowledge of arcane aspects of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. However, I think you are running before you have learned to walk. For example, GNG is sufficient in its own right and the main purpose of NORG is to prevent the project from being abused by PR campaigns etc. There is no sense in which that Caravan piece could be considered promotional in nature, nor most of the news stories - they make it very obvious to any uninvolved person (such as me, who neither lives in India nor professes a religious or political creed) that the HJS comprises a bunch of extremist idiots. But extremist idiots are no more censored on Wikipedia than the more mainstream conformists. The HJS was described as obscure in 2010 but we are now a decade on and it has been mentioned by many independent sources. What actually is your objection here? - Sitush (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think reading and understanding GNG and ORG requires deep knowledge. Both are mostly common sense. My objection is listed in the opening statement. The world is full of idiots and many extreme ones at that. Their work/impact/achievement matters to consider them for an article. Based on what I have seen so far, I think this group has been inconsequential, as a result of which it has lack of multiple examples of "Significant coverage" in reliable media. Hence in my opinion it fails both GNG and ORG. I can see that you disagree with my opinion, and I can live with that.--Walrus Ji (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An organisation whose attempts at censorship, promotion of religious bigotry and alleged connection to acts of violence etc, all and more of which have been reported by a multitude of national mainstream media outlets, is scarcely "inconsequential". It has been around since 2002 and reported since at least 2010. - Sitush (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there is enough coverage to keep.--Blurz (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blurz was recently created --Walrus Ji (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did make an edit on 20 October. How are you defining "recent"? Any account newer than yours? - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have some degree of notoriety in connection with the assassination of the journalist and activist Gauri Lankesh,[[4]] [[5]] [[6]], which itself was a notable politically influenced murder. [[7]] The Hindu Janajagruti Samiti are relevant in the context of Right-wing Hindu fanaticism and extremism. The article should be kept, and fleshed-out more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJS ml343x (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage. Just need to write in a neutral point of view as such organizations are 'sensitive'. Dwain09877 (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account was created four days ago. Vikram Vincent 10:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwain09877: I beg you to please present those sources that prove detailed coverage, as explained very clearly on WP:NORG. @KJS ml343x: Thanks for sharing the links instead of empty words. All three of those link are about an under investigation murder case with only passing mentions of accusation. There is a different article about the murder case. Walrus Ji (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrus Ji: Thank you, good point. I will try to post a couple of other articles that I hope would be more salient. Cheers, and regards KJS ml343x (talk) 01:55, 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) 01:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are hundreds of such organizations in India. Be careful while listing them on our beloved wikipedia. Yadav0281 (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Above account was less than an hour old when they !voted. Obviously unfamiliar with AfD procedure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete only 300 volunteer and its my first time hearing about this "fascist" organisation so not much notable or has much coverage ill quote Walrus Ji these are exactly what i think

>A minor fringe group with lack of detailed coverage. The group has not done or achieved anything remarkable. the Deccan Herald described this group as an "obscure ... small band of fanatics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sungpeshwe9 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

User banned for sockpuppetry. Greyjoy^talk 14:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria as below:

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
[8]	N	Y	?	Y	N	It is not really about the organization.
[9]	Y	N	N	N	N	Org’s website
[10]	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Only mentioning in passing: "In September 2007, for instance, it resulted in the arrest of activists of belonging to this movement and to the arrest of other activists belonging to another offshoot of the RSS, the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (Committee for the Hindu Renaissance). "
[11]	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Only mentioning in passing: "The proposed screening of a film on painter M.F. Husain was postponed indefinitely by the organisers of the 42nd International Film Festival of India (IFFI), Goa 2011 on Sunday after right-wing groups like the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) threatened an agitation. ‘
[12]	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Only mentioning in passing: "Right-wing organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the Bajrang Dal, Sri Rama Sene, Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, and others."
[13]	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Only mentioning in passing x 2: "The Jesuit-run centre...had withdrawn three paintings...following a complaint to the police by the obscure Hindu Janajagruti Samiti." and "the Janajagruti claimed that..." Again, not really talks about the org.
[14]	N	?	?	Y	N	Only mentioning in passing once as one of the org’s.
[15]	N	?	?	Y	N	Only mentioning in passing once: "to attend the All India Hindu Convention organized by Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) on Sunday."
[16]	N	?	?	Y	N	Only mentioning in passing once: " Addressing the media, representatives of groups under the banner of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) called the Saturday violence as pre-planned."
[17]	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Only mentioning in passing once: "Amol Kale, former Pune convenor of the Sanstha-affiliated Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, has been named as the prime accused ."
[18]	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Only mentioning in passing such as: "Ramesh Shinde, national spokesperson of the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti."
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Two sources [19] and [20] were dead for me. In summary: None of the references with exception of the Org's website actually provide any significant coverage of the Org IMHO. Kolma8 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India recently restructured its website (as also did The Hindu). Those articles will still exist on the site under a new url, and should be at the Wayback Machine under the original url. I am on mobile which makes it a pain to fix these things, but I can assure you that the citations were valid and therefore still are. -Sitush (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of those two links is here. I used the Archive link at bottom of the ToI website to find it. I am unsure about the apparent obsession with NORG here. Surely GNG is sufficient when it has had so many mentions in the national media etc and clearly is not a flash in the pan. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may also have missed the sources referred to in this discussion but not yet in the article, one of which seems to be an in-depth interview. - Sitush (talk) 21:32, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto de Desenvolvimento Gerencial

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

Seemingly non-notable organisation. Can't find much in the way of reliable sources besides mentions, but I could be missing something due to the language barrier. Company has since changed its name to Falconi Consultores de Resultados, for which I also didn't find much in the way of sourcing. Sam Walton (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With help of my knowledge in spanish, I found that this company has been superseded by "Falconi Consultores de Resultado" as stated in its portuguese article [21]. Even so, both companies do not have solid coverage to establish notability. Does not seem to meet NCORP or GNG. Nevertheless, one of the founders, Vicente Falconi, does seem to be notable (portuguese [22]), so if anyone cares enough to create an article on him and merge content from the institute there, I would vote for it. I will not volunteer, though. Mathias (talk) 03:18, 1 December 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:43, 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) 00:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas G. Moore

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO An internet search shows no Reliable Sources. A Forbes profile page is NOT sufficient for Notability. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 02:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added 3 sources on the page, of which the aspects of primary/secondary can be up for debate. The huffpost profile [23] suggests to me that he is notable to some extent. Will continue to look into this later but for now I'm going towards a keep. Pahunkat (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources. Some of the sentences do not have sources, so it seems there may be COI or UPE. How would the creator have all this info without sources? Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE: fails BASIC The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [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) 08:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inmans, California

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

Topos show a single isolated building in the middle of Sequoia National Forest. Only seems to be on one pre-GNIS topo, and that topo also shows a variety of cabins and lodges that are ommitted from the other maps. Not in Gudde, and Google books and newspapers.com don't bring up anything meaningful for me. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 14:14, 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyan, California

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

Makes its sole appearance on the topos in 1932; the location never seems to develop any buildings, even after the name is no longer mentioned. Newspapers.com and Google books are only bringing up scanner errors, mostly for the word Ryan. Not in Gudde. Some sort of railroad feature, fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Older topos show a passing siding going off to the south, but there are never any buildings around. Mangoe (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 14:20, 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, California

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

Not in GNIS, not in Gudde, can't find anything meaningful on newspapers.com. Topos show point marked "Well", apparently denoting a well, in the general area, but that's about it. Site has been covered over by the Edwards Air Force Base. I'm not able to find anything significant demonstrating this was ever actually a community. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm up for deleting this simply because Durham is the sole source, but in any case there's nothing that shows anything at an appropriate spot. The well in question is by my reckoning much closer to Muroc itself than to the supposed Neil. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Pilean (talk) 05:32, 13 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, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Om Prakash Bhatt (producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and other relevant criteria. References are mere mentions and profiles on various websites. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, no in-depth coverage about the subject in question. In my opinion he doesn't warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia.- FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 14:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person passes WP:FILMMAKER as have produced multiple notable works like Ye Re Ye Re Paisa, Ye Re Ye Re Paisa 2 and Milan Talkies, his works are from notable production houses as well like Zee Studios and Panorama Studios and thus I think thats enough to establish notability. Dtt1^Talk 11:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:OUTCOMES. No significant coverage. We almost always delete articles here about film producers. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 03:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megha P Rao

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

Fails notability requirements. No significant sourced material available to be found. Written as promotional material. Habiliment (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's all copyvio, so I have added the CSD G12 template. Possibly (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since most of the copyvio had been removed by the time I got to the page, I removed the rest of it. There's now very little left of the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being an Indian, never heard of her. Yadav0281 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Above account was less than an hour old when they !voted. Obviously unfamiliar with AfD procedure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 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) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This really needs no explanation as to why. It is a short and very poorly written article that cites two dead references to a non-notable person. Quite self-explanatory. Coreykai (talk) 14:57, 13 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) 23:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected Love (upcoming film)

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

Non-notable future film, has not received significant coverage and no evidence there has been any movement in production since 2016, production not being notable, it should not have a standalone article per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 03:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet upcoming films guidance. Kolma8 (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if a film shot in 2016 has not been released by now, there is no reason to believe it ever will. This is a good example of why not every film should be okayed the moment "filming has begun". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 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. czar 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verdant, California

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

Yet another former siding on a long-gone rail line— how many times have I written that now? Anyway, searching is completely hopeless because "verdant"+"imperial"=an endless list of false hits, but judging from the topos and the aerials this was never more than a shipping siding in an agricultural zone. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:54, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Temple (film)

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

Non-notable future film, per WP:NFF, film has had absolutely no coverage since casting was announced, does not have significant coverage and no evidence production was ever completed [Plus the IMDb entry has been deleted?] BOVINEBOY2008 02:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Movie was released in 2017, but still said "upcoming," which I changed. I wasn't able to find much other sources, than a crappy one. So it's not notable with so little sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. not notable Kolma8 (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like it could be fun to watch, but right now all we have is a film that has completed but not yet received any sort of actual release or coverage beyond a bare minimum. It may technically pass NFF but this is one of those situation where it also fails it, as there's nothing to suggest that this will ever actually see the light of day any time soon. If/when it's released, it can always be re-created. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meeet WP:GNG. And their is so little coverage it most likely has not been released yet, but I'm not really sure it has or hasn't. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:35, 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. There is a general consensus that notability is not met here. I would also advise User:Martinvince that harassing other editors on a discussion board is likely to lead to a block. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gordon (businessman)

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

Non-notable businessman, passing mentions in reliable sources only, lots of blogs and other user-generated sources as references. Krutapidla2 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I would like to say I am a relatively new editor, was paid by someone to make edits to this page, and was not aware it was not allowed. I was following my employer’s instructions. I have looked up the rules now and spoke to my employer. Hence, I will not post any votes due to conflict of interest, but I want to bring to your attention that the nominator Krutapidla2 seems to have a personal vendetta against Gordon, so there is a clear conflict of interest on his part. I would ask that this deletion be cancelled immediately due to his conflict of interest.

Possibly he is also a paid editor from a freelancer site that didn't get the job and now posting as personal vendetta. How else could he have known that I was hired? The client has told me he only invited 5 people to the task he had posted privately, so Krutapidla2 must be one of the 5 people.

Just to recap, this is what happened:

1) Someone posted negative defamatory content on Gordon’s page from an IP 128.8.127.130

2) Gordon hired someone on a freelancer site to provide factual content, and that someone hired me. I reverted the defamatory language and also posted factual content to expand the page

3) Krutapidla2 reverted everything, including other content I had added.

What the original Troll and “Krutapidla2” wrote are completely inaccurate, defamatory, and contrary to Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality.

He wrote: “On June 20, 2019, the SEC settled administrative securities fraud charges against Gordon.” This is not only wrong, but also extremely misleading and defamatory. Gordon was never charged with fraud. He agreed to a settlement, with no admission of any charges whatsoever, as part of a much larger case against Ability Inc.

Gordon himself was a victim of the fraud by Ability Inc and its founders. The SEC brought fraud charges against Ability’s founders (SOURCE). Gordon was the largest victim. He was the largest shareholder in a public company that lied about its financials to induce Gordon to invest. After Ability’s auditors at BDO admitted they were restating their audited financials, Gordon lost 99% of his investment. Indeed, Gordon was the sole shareholder who called publicly on Ability to provide full transparency, to prevent the founders from taking out $12 million while the company was disintegrating, and to protect public shareholder rights. The SEC investigated multiple parties, settled with Ability and Gordon on a no-admit basis, and litigated against the Ability founders, exactly as Gordon had advocated. All of this is clearly and publicly documented.

Another source.

One more source.

Gordon's Open Letter.

If you are going to say anything at all about this topic, please replace the “Krutapidla2” defamatory paragraph with a more accurate description. This would be a balanced and neutral statement:

Please check the talk page for my suggested edits.

Since I have found out I cannot add this personally due to my paid editing, I am asking other Wiki editors to please read the plain facts as I have shared them with you and add this directly, as it is the right thing to do.

I would also ask that “Krutapidla2” not be allowed to make any more edits to this page due to conflict of interest. He also has a Single Purpose Account wp:SPA, and appears to have broken rules. Only an experienced editor would have known how to nominate a page for deletion.

Thank you.Martinvince (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment @Martinvince This is about Mr. Gordon and the SEC:

"According to the SEC's order <...> Gordon negligently failed to take reasonable steps and conduct appropriate due diligence to ensure that Cambridge shareholders voting on the merger were provided with material and accurate information concerning Ability's business prospects, including Ability's purported ownership of a new, game-changing cellular interception product, ULIN, Ability's so-called backlog of orders from its largest customer, a police agency in Latin America, Ability's lack of actual purchase orders backing its backlog, and Ability's pipeline of possible future orders from customers."

"Gordon agreed to a cease-and-desist order, which finds that he willfully violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933..."

"The SEC's order requires Gordon to pay a $100,000 civil penalty, imposes a cease-and-desist order, and imposes a 12-month associational, penny stock, and investment company suspension.'"

More here [[24]] Kolma8 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The more you post things like this, the more it shows that you are most likely a sock puppet of user:Krutapidla2 who nominated the page for deletion and was making disruptive edits. You also conveniently left out the part that says "Without admitting or denying the findings," Have you considered that most people in these cases settle even if they are not at fault because it is much cheaper to pay a fine and get it over with then fight it for years? The same exact thing happened to Elon Musk. SEC went after him over a Twitter post and he had to pay a $20million fine. If you read all that I said, Gordon himself was a victim of the fraud done by the founders of the company and lost 99% of his own investments. He was an innocent victim cut in the middle of all these. Martinvince (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone has already removed the defamatory part. I have no idea who it is, but thanks. Martinvince (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All information seems correctly sourced. However there is some POV pushing sections, I think I am going to help cleanup this article. Currently I am leaning to keep the article. Vallee01 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In What way?? please explain? Have you seen these sources: Yahoo, Bloomberg, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNBC? Also check my comment below the next vote. Martinvince (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this nominator nominated the page as a personal vandetta and he has been warned by admins on his talk page User_talk:Krutapidla2. Gordon has significant amount of coverage, including in depth articles in [Yahoo], [NY York Times], [Bloomberg]. He also has coverage in Wall Street Journal , CNBC and many other sites. There are a lot more sources in Google News, if you search.

Rather than saying "Per Nom," I ask you to please review again and disclose in detail your reasons why you think it does not meet notablity? Martinvince (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I searched and IMO the subject fails WP:BASIC as well as WP:ANYBIO see below.

*The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

*The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.

*The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

If you think that he meets the above please let me know. Thank you Kolma8 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1- He definitely meets WP:BASIC, which states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Again check the sources and explain why the one I mentioned are not credible or significant. This here alone is enough to justify support for a keep and the subject does not necessarily have to meet WP:ANYBIO., as it states "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below."

2- Regarding WP:ANYBIO awards, he has won two Business Plan awards for "Only one to be" Harvard Business School (2000 for 3Plex; 2010 for EcoSquid) source 1, Source 2 / Additional In Depth Source not in the article now, Source 3 (All these are additional sources BTW, not in the article)

3- Historical Contribution: Founder of one of the first SaaS logistics companies (3Plex) - pioneer in the sector

4- Historical Contribution: Recognized expertise: recognized expert and source of feature articles in multiple media including NY Times, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, and CNBC

5- Historical Contribution: Activist featured in the book "Bad Blood" for taking down Yale Chairman Vernon Loucks Google Books Source Martinvince (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Martinvince. I researched your contributions on wikipedia, which history spans for about 60 days now and noticed the history of your contributions overlap with Rkoret. Both of you contributed greatly to advance the subject of this article in Wikipedia. Kolma8 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried to clean up the article, but after checking the references, realized that most of them not about the subject, but stating his opinion about the subject of the article. He is mentioned as an expert, "one expert" and so on, so he is clearly an expert, but what makes him notable I'm still missing. It reads as a promotional article. Kolma8 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Martinvince he fails your 1st point. Specifically "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." He didn't receive any significant coverage in the cited sources. He made comments on the subject of the articles, but the articles were not covering Mr. Gordon. I don't see any value to your citing the wiki and name dropping, but not providing any real support to your argument. Kolma8 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am now suspecting that you are the same Pakastani UPE editor that has nominated this page for deletion and have reported you for investigation.

Please check these sources and tell me in what way these are not significant coverage and don’t meet notability?

1- NY Times – Major publication, in-depth coverage

2- Bloomberg Major publication, in-depth coverage

3- HARVARD Award from Harvard Business School, Passing mention, but shows notability and passes criteria for WP:ANYBIO

4- Yahoo Finance Major publication, in depth coverage

Also there are several passing mentions including CNBC, WSJ, Forbes, WP:BASIC States : “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.”

In addition, Gordon has appeared as an analyst on CNBC several times and has written in Fortune and other publications.Martinvince (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the sources. Checked them. Two were by subscriptions only -- can't comment on them; the other two do not really provide "significant coverage." I will stick to my opinion that the subject fails notability and stay with delete per my right here. Good luck to you! Kolma8 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Improve There are enough reliable, secondary sources in this article to pass WP:GNG. Some editing to reduce any unsourced facts or slanted views can be done to tidy things up a bit. I did some general clean up to streamline this and take some of the promotional feel out -- combining what were basically a couple of one-sentence sections with their own headings into the "career" section. Also - this guy is widely recognized as an expert in supply chain and logistics, as noted by several of the sources. Tennis Anyone?^Talk15:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that this nominator nominated the page as a personal vandetta and he has been warned by admins on his talk page User_talk:Krutapidla2. Gordon has significant amount of coverage, including in depth articles in [Yahoo], [NY York Times], [Bloomberg]. He also has coverage in Wall Street Journal , CNBC and many other sites. There are a lot more sources in Google News, if you search.Unfortunately page is locked now due to this corrupt editor and vandalism and only admins can improve. Martinvince (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Improve This is a respected expert in transport and logistics with impressive publication credentials as noted and regular appearances on CNBC and other respectable sources. Rkoret (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that after reviewing the contribution of Rkoret and Martinvince I cannot help but notice some collaborative efforts in the subject of this article. Specifically Rkoret created the article. Both users contributed relatively little to Wikipedia in general. Again, just an observation as I was very surprised how rather aggressively both are campaigning for this article. Kolma8 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Also can someone address the statement above by Martinvince: "I would like to say I am a relatively new editor, was paid by someone to make edits to this page". The more I look into the history of this page the more I am confused. Please someone with more experience help. Kolma8 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already disclosed that I am a paid editor if you read all the details above. However, none of my edits was accepted on the page and was reverted. I do not know who the other editor is or whether he was paid or not, but having used a paid editor has no bearing if a notable page should remain or deleted. You need to make your argument based on the page content and sources. If you find promotional language feel free to revise and I think that’s what you tried to do. But you have also removed 2 credible sources, so this is now disruptive editing. I have a feeling that you are the same Pakasteni UPE that nominated this page for deletion, using a 2nd account. I have reported you for Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Benjamin_Gordon_(businessman) investigation. You only have one year edit history and appear to have WP:SPA account.Martinvince (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow...Ok. ;) Kolma8 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve as I am in agreement with that. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by both Kolma8 & Alexandermcnabb. Celestina007 (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I am already so much invested in this, I did some more research into all this mess around this article. The article was created Rkoret, further extended in return of payment per the disclosure above by Martinvince. Mr. Grodon's photo professionally done was provided to and uploaded by Rkoretcommons [[25]], which is probably the same as Rkoret. Of course could be a coincidence. Both Rkoret and Martinvince worked on a few the same articles. Most of the articles created by two are non-notable and from which nominated for deletion related to the subject of this article. SO, who knows... Kolma8 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact that you would spend so much time into this and have been arguing so hard in support of deletion, it makes it obvious that you have COI and vendetta to get this page deleted. You may be a sockpupepet of the Troll and Nominator, same Pakastani UPE guy. If so, I know your real identity and will not disclose due to Wiki policy. As I said I am a paid editor, but have not made any edits to the page that have remained, so it doesn't matter. I have also not VOTED on this page due to COI, but I am allowed to post comments. And it is total BS that I have many common edits with the other editor. Please show me one? If he is paid I have no idea, because I am only speaking on my own behalf. BTW, it is possible to acquire images by contacting the subject and it is not against Wiki. I looked into it. This is not proof that they are paid.

Let's get back to the subject and if you have any personal attacks post on my TALK page. I ask you do not post anything here anymore. You have already been reported. Here is why the page should not be deleted:

1- NY Times – Major publication, in-depth coverage

2- Bloomberg Major publication, in-depth coverage

3- HARVARD Award from Harvard Business School, Passing mention, but shows notability and passes criteria for WP:ANYBIO

4- Yahoo Finance Major publication, in depth coverage

Also there are several passing mentions including CNBC, WSJ, Forbes, WP:BASIC States : “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.”

In addition, Gordon has appeared as an analyst on CNBC several times and has written in Fortune and other publications.Martinvince (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinvince - I have not personally attacked you and already commented on the non-notability the sources above. So, I am not sure what is the reason to post them again. BTW this is the most bizarre deletion discussion with three of you thinking that someone is plotting against you, but yet failing to understand that Wikipedia has specific criteria for articles... But please always work hard for what you believe is right thing to do (or for what you were paid to do in your case). And actually to make it personal for you: If you know my identity come and stop by at my house (hint: it is in Germany; the same where is my IP address will bring) and we can drink a beer. Cheers to you. Kolma8 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Most of the keep !votes do not seem to address policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onel5969: Have you checked the sources??? I am surprised you would say this. Why are these sources below not notable or have in depth coverage and why do you think there is not significant coverage?

1- NY Times – Major publication, in-depth coverage

2- Bloomberg Major publication, in-depth coverage

3- HARVARD Award from Harvard Business School, Passing mention, but shows notability and passes criteria for WP:ANYBIO

4- Yahoo Finance Major publication, in depth coverage) Martinvince (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and reasoning above. His own companies, which have written about more frequently and in-depth than the person himself, and thereby are more notable, don't hold articles of their own.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: This vote is very suspect. It is an WP:SPA. Account created only in Oct 2020 and this AFD vote is the only AFD vote this person has done ever. It would appear this is the same Troll that nominated this page for deletion and sockpuppet account. Please disqualify this vote. Also, I already posted links to several in depth articles not written by himself. Martinvince (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? My account has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this article. My edits have nothing in common with sockpuppets. You keep making baseless , rash, and uncivil accusations toward almost every single user here who has disagreed with your comments. That is unacceptable and a mighty fine horse to sit on given that you are an employee of the subject the article itself. This businessman is not notable, in my valid opinion as a user, under WP guidelines and precedent period. There is no way to disqualify my vote on any basis. Your attempts are futile, emotional, insulting, and deeply worrisome.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how you would randomly pick this page out of the blue to vote on??? You have no history of voting on anything else in AFD! Very suspect! Martinvince (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't owe you a single explanation - however, I am willing to state that I'm a frequent editor of the article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and saw your user on the contributions list. As is my prerogative, I checked your contributions and saw that they led here. There is nothing suspicious about my activity, and continuously attacking me isn't going to help this matter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is full of sources that are either written by Gordon or are about something else that namechecks him in a trivial passing manner, such as the this WJS source about trucking services that briefly mentions a quote from him. That's just not enough to write a neutral and unbiased article. In order to forestall a few other arguments:

I saw the debate listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs which means it is ready to be closed by an administrator. While I am such an administrator and have indeed closed hundreds if not thousands of AfD debates, I felt it was better to state an opinion to help cement a consensus.
I don't particularly care about who wrote the article or why, all I care about is if a neutral and independent editor can clean the article up into a respectable state, and my view is that it is impossible.
As you can see from my contributions, I have been around for about 15 years, with much of the activity over the past 8. You can see a list of my good articles here and a list of my did you know nominations here in case you are worried I might be a single purpose account. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 23 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, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Rismondo

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO. The article makes no claim of notability. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 22:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The encyclopedia entry is a tertiary source and does not count toward notability. ANYBIO doesn't even state the subject is presumed notable but simply they are likely to be notable, so it is the weakest claim possible without additional evidence/sources. The submarine naming does however show along with the ANYBIO bio dict entry that there is probably more. I can't find more, but will change to weak keep based on the probability. // Timothy :: talk 07:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another article about someone with no obvious claim to fame. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO based on the comments below. Much of this could have been avoided had the article writer clearly stated the subject's claim to notability in the first sentence; "an Austrian-born Italian irredentist and decorated military volunteer" does not cut it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation to the encyclopedia was there from the moment of creation, so the way this could have been avoided is if all of the people who offered "delete" opinions actually based their comments on evidence rather than guesswork. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of the citation to the Treccani was not apparent to me; I had never come across it before. I accept your criticism, but my advice to article creators remains that a concise statement of notability (MOS:LEADSENTENCE) will save an article from PROD and AfD. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an article on the Enciclopedia Treccani, the most important Italian encyclopedia. This submarine was named after him.--Alienautic (talk) 01:40, 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) 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails in passing WP:SOLDIER Pilean (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly passes WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:RS since he has an entry in Treccani.--Alienautic (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Kolma8 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3 - "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." Treccani is the Italian national encyclopaedia. Narky Blert (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just a quick scan through the books and academic papers linked in the nomination shows that the subject has been regarded by many Italians as a national hero, and that he has had at least a school, a street and two submarines named after him, and of course there's the entry in Treccani. No, he's not the latest meme trending on social media sites, but is that the standard by which we should judge whether a topic is encyclopedic? Do we aspire to cover fewer topics than paper encyclopedias? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry in Treccani and other evidence, like a submarine and streets named after him in many Italian cities (Ancona, Bologna, Milan, Padova, Torino etc., even in Rome) are inclusion qualifications. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stub needs a lot of work, but based on what I read here, he easily passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Angels High School

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

Fails WP:ORG, no coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Serv181920 (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Serv181920 (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. BEFORE revealed nothing that meets SIGCOV; there is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage, and directory listings. // Timothy :: talk 23:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an unsourced article. It is far past when we should tolerate such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sourcing to support this at all. Fails WP:GNG Sneakerheadguy (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. I am always suspicious of fairly new schools with large enrollments. Fails my standards for schools. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 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. Missvain (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oluseyi Damisola Olusore

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

This article cites credible international media organisations including CNN which is cited three times and the BBC cited once in the article but all appear to be deceptive. While all three CNN links in the article show error message, the BBC link did not make any single reference to the subject of the article. All other sources in the article are also misleading. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Northern Escapee (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references links have been fixed, actually, the articles speak about how he has been helping people fight obesity with his weight programs. I encourage you to read the articles to understand more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clyteenig (talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for WP:UPE. Delete as spam. MER-C 16:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 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. Geschichte (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaffee, California

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

I've been looking at this one for several days. It appears on maps as an undeveloped railroad feature. All I've been to find about this [26], which calls it a station. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG is certainly not met. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Topos and GMaps show an isolated siding with nothing around it but the naval station/spaceport. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. How many notable places are in California??? Every rock! Kolma8 (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short article that fails all points of WP:GEOLAND and WP:SIGCOV. There is not one website on the internet that is independent of subject. Coreykai (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:06, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teamhunting

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

A mere dictionary definition. Noahfgodard (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Dicdef. Searches turned up more about the hunter/gatherer lifestyle (and not much about that), than about this recruiting concept.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable neologism. It seems to be promoting a German recruiting firm who uses the term as their gimmick. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:TNT. This seems to be a literal machine translation of an essay about a German word for team-building or what not. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 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. Geschichte (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Crest, California

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

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

These two places are in fact the same spot, on different generations of topos. To help confuse matters further. the road is named "Rock Crest Camp Rd.", and there are some references to the area by that name; on top of that, this spot is unrelated to the Rock Creek located elsewhere in the county. The big problem is working out what it is, as I can find nothing at that describes it. The topos show a tight cluster of buildings, which is consistent with GMaps, showing two rows of mostly identical cabins, with sheds/garages, in two rows. The obvious interpretation of this is that they are tourist cabins, and that the whole thing is a camp of some sort. But usually there is some business/organization connected, and I just can't find it. At any rate, the evidence as it stands is against this being a little town. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - This sheet of community announcements from 1983 (click to read the OCR) describes people moving to Rock Crest and living there. This article describes children being bussed to the Injun Jim school who lived in Rock Crest. Better sourcing is needed but Rock Crest seems to have been inhabited at least at that point (i.e., 1950s-1990s based on the newspaper.com hits). I'd lean towards Rock Crest being a very little populated community based simply on the school-bussing coverage. However there's no evidence of legal recognition so that throws it to WP:GNG per WP:GEOLAND and it's hard to see it passing that. Rock Creek Camp on the other hand turns up nothing and I'm OK with that being deleted.FOARP (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, flip to Delete. Both fail WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No post office. Not in Gudde. Searching Newspapers.com for ' "Rock Crest" Plumas" does find a number of trivial hits like [27]. Here's a clip that suggests that Rock Crest was a power utility (PG&E) camp: [28]. It looks like PG&E runs the water system there: [29]. Having a water system is not sufficient for legal recognition, in California many water systems are operated by towns/cities/villages or corporations. My best guess is that Rock Creek was/is a PG&E camp. As it is not legally recognized and there is no non-notable coverage, it does not meet WP:GEOLAND and should be deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Cxbrx, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 14:52, 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 Draftify. You can find it here Draft:Scooby-Doo! The Sword and the Scoob Missvain (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo! The Sword and the Scoob

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

per WP:NFF Non-notable future film, does not have significant coverage by secondary sources (not blogs, commercial websites or databases), would probably be best in draft space until it is released and receives typical moderate coverage that direct-to-DVD videos receive BOVINEBOY2008 02:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until release. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a not yet released film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft like Happy Halloween, Scooby-Doo! it is best to move to draft a work on it there and when is released move back into main space. Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until extensive coverage hits per WP:TOOSOON. Dark knight 2149 08:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This keeps happeing with every new Scooby-Doo movie.......★Trekker (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Not enough information at the moment, keep on hold until more becomes available. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:16, 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. czar 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watermans Corner, California

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

GNIS has this on the wrong corner but it hardly matters. There's nothing on the correct corner anymore, and the only aerial that shows anything there has a small lot with what looks like small orchard, and maybe a tiny house. Maybe. At any rate GHits are all clickbait and the only "good" GBook hits refer to it as an intersection. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and almost definitely fails WP:GEOLAND as well Spiderone 18:28, 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. czar 22:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wister, California

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

I left this out of the run of ex-SP ex-sidings because it's not completely out in the desert. In fact it marks the northern corner of the Imperial Wildilfe Area, but don't be fooled by the gray dot on the map of the area: there's nothing there except a set of block signals. Topos show it as a siding, of course, and some show a string of buildings alongside, which I am skeptical about, but in any case there's the usual lack of any other evidence for a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 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. czar 22:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsie, California

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

I wasted a great deal of time trying to fathom the mess that is the article(s) on the railroad this is on, but I needn't have bothered: 1950s topos call the spot "Wilsie siding". It's gone, and there's nothing at the spot, and it clearly was never a town. Mangoe (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 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. It's snowing. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Wright (digital operator)

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

Speedy tag blanked by SPA, so bringing this here. Highly promotional article about a non-notable individual; sources are either SEO Spam (ONN, Extravagant), non-independent (lots of mere links to websites of NGOs he has worked with), unreliable (Instagram, company bio pages), or don't mention him at all (aforementioned links, Manchester Evening News, the Reading Chronicle). Ideally speedy delete as a case of WP:G11. Blablubbs|talk 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 00:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional article that fails all points in WP:GNG. The references are horribly formatted, and don't even talk about the subject of the article. Incredibly suspicious of self-publishing, as there is random personal information in this article and the creator of this article has edited only this article and no other. The article is poorly written and shows no sign of any notability, and not to be rude, but I have never seen a digital operator with their own Wikipedia article. Coreykai (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This user has also attempted to recreate the same article on Uncyclopedia (a parody of Wikipedia) today, by literally copy-pasting the Wikipedia article under a nearly identical username; therefore, the evidence is quite clear that they are attempting to promote themselves, in a way. (See: Special:Contribs/Benswarbrick on Uncyclopedia). Additionally, I am recommending speedy deletion. KevTYD (wake up) 02:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:UPE spam; creator now blocked for spamming. MER-C 10:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete through AFD rather than speedy, to make it clear that identical content can be {{db-repost}}ed on sight in the future. Speedy deletion requires that all good-faith non-author editors who see the template don't remove it, which may not happen if this content is re-posted after a G11 deletion.

Also recommend opening a formal (possibly pro-forma) WP:SPA (correction: WP:SPI, davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)) for the two meat/sockpuppets so returning confirmed socks can be easily tagged, bagged, and their creations {{db-banned}}.[reply]

Delete basically "per nom," per "likely not notable, but we can decide that later if and when a good-faith editor made a draft and finds good sources," and per off-wiki/Uncyclopedia evidence of bad-faith/promo editing by two accounts that created this. Even if this topic does turn out to be notable, it's clear this is not the basis for an acceptable article.

Bottom line: If its not notable, delete, if it is, WP:Blow it up and start over with a fresh draft by non-COI editors that goes through an approval process (or, hypothetically, is so obviously notable and neutrally-written that nobody will mind if the author moves it into main-space). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC) (SPI recommendation struck, it's being handled. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

delete preferably speedy, this is just straight up PR gibberish sourced to blackhat SEO spam. G5, G11 apply See Louis Wright (blogger), Iamlwright Draft:Louis Wright (internet personality), Louis Wright (Blogger), Draft:Louis Wright Praxidicae (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should this page be officially determined to be {{db-banned}}-eligible but for any significant contributions I may have made let it be known that I have no objection to a deletion under that criteria, once it is determined to be eligible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails WP:BASIC Spiderone 20:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly G5-able (SPI) but, given the persistence of its creator, it's useful to have G4 available too (looks like WP:SNOW). Cabayi (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all notability. WikiSzeman (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a not-yet-notable 22-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 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) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Johnson (software engineer)

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

No evidence nor claim of notability. Negligible biographical content. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability either. Original version was sourced to Medium, Reddit, crypto blogs. Declined PROD, but without any remedy to the problems. David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is the creator of the Ethereum Name Service (ENS). There is currently a draft for ENS which was submitted and then declined due to a lack of reliable sources. Even if an article for the Ethereum Name Service is ever accepted, it is unlikely that its creator will himself be notable unless by some other means. As for the interview about the Y2K bug, there is no evidence that his solution was significant in solving the problem, especially as he never actually released his proposed solution so far as I can tell.―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 00:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your original request for deletion, you said "Original version was sourced to Medium, Reddit, crypto blogs." In fact, this article doesn't cite Medium, Reddit, or crypto blogs. You wrote: "Declined PROD, but without any remedy to the problems." But in fact the problems you cited didn't exist. Re whether Nick Johnson is notable enough to have an article, being the creator of an open source protocol that is well-known and respected in his industry makes him notable. He has also been listed as one of the most influential people in the Ethereum ecosystem. Bcmillegan (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The original version of the article did, but not the version at the time of the PROD. This should be clear from me saying that I was talking about the original version - that is, this was never a well-sourced article. The problem is that it's ill-sourced and not up to any notability standard, let alone BLP rules. Do you have sufficient sources for your article to demonstrate notability? - David Gerard (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not mentioned in source. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination: No evidence nor claim of notability. Sources don't meet WP:RS and fails WP:BASIC Sneakerheadguy (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: fails BASIC The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Both the quality and quantity of sources create a weak case for notability. ^Hidden_Lemon _/^{/ talk} 18:52, 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 Deleted by request (G7). (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 04:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brookshire’s Grocery Arena

This page was created by accident, this venue was going through a name change and I forgot about the "move" thing so I created it by accident, Please help me out―thomasthedarkenguine talk•contribs 16:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to 2020–21 Amateur Division Two. Merge and redirect. Missvain (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Algerian Ligue 2

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

No Ligue Pro 2 for the 2020–21 season, there is another page, the 2020–21 Amateur Division Two for this season wich is correctly about the new amateur league. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the other title, which I believe in this case just means deleting and redirecting. For those of you not up on the scoop, the organisation which oversaw Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 handed Ligue 2 over to the amateur federation which oversaw tier 3 and below for this season at least, probably because of the pandemic. SportingFlyer T·C 17:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per SF. Giant Snowman 20:51, 13 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.

[Bogdashina2003-1] Olga Bogdashina (1 January 2003). "5. Cognitive Styles". Sensory Perceptual Issues in Autism and Asperger Syndrome: Different Sensory Experiences, Different Perceptual Worlds. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-84310-166-6. OCLC 939265330. Another problem autistic people are reported to experience is 'inertia' (Dekker 1999)—difficulty in starting and planning the task. But once they start, they find it hard to stop until they finish., citing: Dekker, Martijn, ON OUR OWN TERMS: Emerging autistic culture (PDF), p. 8, archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-06-25, retrieved 2020-12-06, Inertia. Many autistic members of InLv* find that they have a particular difficulty that we usually call "inertia". At first sight it looks like laziness: the inertial person has problems getting started with things, such as doing housework, filling in tax forms, or writing a paper for Autism99, even if the motivation to do it is present. It may also be that he ends up doing something different than planned, because this was easier to get started with than the originally planned task. But on the other hand, when the inertial person does manage to get started with something, it is hard to stop again; normal sleeping times are not observed and he gets irritable if interrupted because he is completely immersed in the activity that he finally managed get started with. One InLv member compared himself to a steamroller: 'I'm a slow starter, but get out of the way once I'm rolling!'. Inertia can thus have its advantages if one manages to use it to one's advantage. The topic of inertia tends to return periodically in the group discussion and always generates plenty of 'me too' responses; it seems it's an almost universal trait of people on the autistic spectrum. It has been shown to be very important to one's self-esteem to distinguish inertia from laziness. Inertia and laziness can co-exist in the same person, but they are not the same and do not feel the same either. * [Note: InLv – 'Independent Living on the Autistic Spectrum', a mailing list set up in 1996 by Dekker to replace an old, dialup BBS.]

[2] Kuppens, Peter; Allen, Nicholas B.; Sheeber, Lisa (2010). "Emotional inertia and psychological maladjustment". Psychological science. 21 (7): 984–991. doi:10.1177/0956797610372634. ISSN 0956-7976. PMC 2901421. PMID 20501521.

[3] Kuppens, Peter; Oravecz, Zita; Tuerlinckx, Francis (2010). "Feelings change: Accounting for individual differences in the temporal dynamics of affect" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 99 (6): 1042–1060. doi:10.1037/a0020962. ISSN 1939-1315.

[4] Bornas, Xavier; Noguera, Miquel; Pincus, David; Buela-Casal, Gualberto (2014). "Emotional inertia: A key to understanding psychotherapy process and outcome". International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 14 (3): 232–239. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.03.001. ISSN 1697-2600.

[5] Bornas, Xavier; de la Torre-Luque, Alejandro; Fiol-Veny, Aina; Balle, Maria (2017). "Trajectories of anxiety symptoms in adolescents: Testing the model of emotional inertia". International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 17 (2): 192–196. doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.01.002. ISSN 1697-2600.

[:1-6] Welch, Christie; Cameron, Deb; Fitch, Margaret; Polatajko, Helene (2020-02-25). "Living in autistic bodies: bloggers discuss movement control and arousal regulation". Disability and Rehabilitation: 1–9. doi:10.1080/09638288.2020.1729872. ISSN 0963-8288.

[:0-7] Buckle, Karen Leneh; Leadbitter, Kathy; Poliakoff, Ellen; Gowen, Emma (2020-11-25). ""No way out except from external intervention": First-hand accounts of autistic inertia". doi:10.31234/osf.io/ahk6x. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]