Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 October 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 October	11 October >

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 redirect to Temescal, Oakland, California. Sandstein 14:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alden, California

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

Both GNIS and Durham call it an Oakland post office. No evidence there was ever a community by that name. No other indications that it meets basic threshold for notability. Glendoremus (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability about this location is established in this article.TH1980 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Redirect to Temescal, Oakland, California. Being a post office is a legal recognition, which fulfills WP:GEOLAND #1. (I know others don't agree.) Alden Post Office was named after Solomon E. Alden, who owned a bunch of Temescal, Oakland, California. Alden Farm was located south of this location. Cxbrx (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This post office directory indicates that Alden was a station (i.e. a subsidiary) of the Oakland post office. At the time there were more than a dozen stations, substations, and contract stations, all serving Oakland. So it's not necessarily correct to make the assumption that if there is a post office named X, there must be a community named X. For this and other reasons, a post office is not a reliable indicator of a community. Glendoremus (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to redirect to Temescal, Oakland, California. I agree that this location is not very notable, but as it had a post office, it is worth preserving. Deleting the article means that the article might get recreated some time in the future. Doing a redirect is a much better idea. There is a map that says "The Town of Alden". I believe that the GNIS location of the Alden post office is incorrect in that the Alden post office was never located in the Montclair district. The Alden post office was located in Temescal at 49th and Telegraph and renamed to Station E. Station E eventually moved to Montclair. Here's the evidence: A 1908 source documents the name change from Alden to Station E. A 1916 source states that Station E was at 49th and Telegraph for 30 years. In 1908, the Montclair District was basically a wilderness, according Montclair, Oakland, California it was not settled until the 1920s. Here's a 1878 map that shows the Alden tract being in what is now Temescal. A 1899 Oakland Map shows not much out in the Montclair, Oakland, California area. Also, there is an Alden Library located in Temescal that is on the National Register of Historic Places. I'll see about updating the Temescal article. BTW - I think it is really helpful that we are going through these geography articles and deleting or redirecting them. Clearly there are a bunch of articles that are trivial. Cxbrx (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a reasonable solution. Glendoremus (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've updated Temescal, Oakland, California with the text from the Alden article. The Alden article could be redirected at anytime. Cxbrx (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above suggestions, I agree that this is not a notable location per WP:NGEO. Waggie (talk) 00:32, 14 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorenson, California

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

Another railroad facility mistakenly identified as a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Western Pacific RR. No evidence that it was ever a community. Most notable thing about it is that they misspelled the name of the man they were supposed to be honoring, Hansen Sorensen. Otherwise nothing much to say about it. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's no evidence of notabillity for this entity. Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG Paul H. (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability for this locale.TH1980 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NGEO. Waggie (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 12:26, 17 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Kever

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG; I couldn't find one reliable source covering Kever in depth. There were several passing mentions in match reports but there needs to be more than that to pass GNG. As a fund manager, he has an article here [1] but it doesn't appear to be an independent source. Spiderone 23:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - referees who officiate at a high level are not automatically notable, and there is no significant coverage meaning GNG is not met. Giant Snowman 16:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with GiantSnowman here. I don't see any evidence they meet GNG, and I don't see any provisions for referees in WP:NATHLETE. Waggie (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 12:29, 17 October 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 Ingolf Wunder. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin & Liszt in Warsaw

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

Non-notable album. Couldn't find any reviews on the album besides passing mentions from three polish sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ingolf Wunder: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ingolf Wunder. It is false that this album fails WP:NALBUMS - it received a Fryderyk nomination. However I think the coverage in reliable sources is rather limited, and not enough for this album to warrant a standalone article. Zingarese talk · contribs 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ingolf Wunder: I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. "...and is noteworthy in that it features Wunder's own orchestration of Chopin's Allegro de concert for solo piano and orchestra..." - without a source? If that's what makes it noteworthy, then why isn't there a source that discusses that aspect of it, at least?? Waggie (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP readers may search for this term Spudlace (talk) 04:02, 15 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full Diesel

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

Non-notable band. Couldn't find any additional information, and very, very few sources. PepperBeast (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBAND. KidAd talk 22:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band, the only results I found during a Google search were the Wikipedia article, Encyclopedia Metallum, Spirit of Metal and Last.fm. No evidence of notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:57, 11 October 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 no consensus. Radically different interpretations of whether existing coverage is enough to demonstrate notability suggests that no consensus can be found at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crede Bailey

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

Non-notable/low-level White House staffer fails WP:GNG. Only the subject of trivial mentions in connection to Jared Kushner's security clearance and contracting COVID-19. There is no biographic material to speak of – not even a job title – only news clippings. KidAd talk 22:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources on his illness include Bloomburg and NYT with reporting in the Israel (JPost), the Middle East, and Europe. He's also the person who suspended a whistleblower [2] and testified to Congress about it [3]. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing does not really overcome the requirement to not be news coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his position clearly fails WP:NPOL and the coverage is really not significant at all. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What does WP:POL have to do with this? He's a government employee, not a politician or judge. Hobit (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It has to do nothing with this, that's why he's not covered by the political SNG even though he works in government, though it is the most applicable SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a lot international and domestic coverage of him related to Covid. There is significant coverage related to his testimony. I've provided multiple independent sources here and there are others in the article. I'm not going to claim the coverage is in great depth, but it is beyond trivial and thus enough per WP:N. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Being mentioned in articles doesn't get you past WP:GNG. Bailey is barely mentioned in the articles about testimony (though I can't read the NY Times one, he's nowhere near the headline) and the security adviser infected with COVID articles are all very brief and just states that someone who works in the White House has been hospitalised with COVID-19 and are all very brief blurbs which don't go into any detail of him at all. While his testimony was printed in one of the articles, no true significant coverage of him seems to exist, which is what we need, especially since he's a WP:BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 16:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I continue to think that WP:N doesn't require people or things or anything else to be covered in some broader context--just that they be covered. There are literally dozens of newspapers across the world that covered his being hospitalized with Covid. That would probably be a BLP1E thing other than he's seen non-trivial coverage for his actions and testimony with respect to a federal whistleblower. I get we won't agree here, but I don't see an argument that articles, even short ones, could be considered "trivial" coverage. And if it's more than trivial, it's good enough for WP:N (as written). Hobit (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I completely disagree - we require significant coverage per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, and none of the sources currently in the article give him more than a trivial mention. Furthermore, he's not really a public figure, as evidenced by the fact he's referred to by his job title instead of his name in the very short blurb of an article about him getting COVID-19, and WP:NPF requires high quality secondary sources. Furthermore we frequently delete articles where the topic has been covered but not significantly - the sports rule is that match reports do not give a player significant coverage, just as "transactional" reports of "another person who works in the White House" has COVID shouldn't give this bloke notability. Also note I'm not arguing WP:BLP1E, I'm arguing he's just not notable at all on triviality and WP:NOTNEWS grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 10:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we understand each other. I don't think an article, even one of just a few paragraphs, solely about a subject can be said to be trivial coverage of that subject. You disagree. I believe my views are more inline with the examples given in WP:N, but I fully acknowledge that things like "trivial" and "significant" are by definition opinions and that our opinions are different. I think you have a reasonable view, just not one I agree with. We'll see where consensus lies and move forward from there. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        SportingFlyer, some people argue an individual shouldn't have a standalone article is missing the mundane milepoints of their life, like where they were born, where they studied, whether they were married, or had children. While those details should be included, if they are known, they are not what make them notable. What makes them notable is what they have done, what they have said, and what RS have said about their actions and statements. After Bailey's in-camera testimony before the House Oversight Committee Elijah Cummings, the chair, was highly critical of the White House's stonewalling. Every time Cummings criticized "The White House", he was really criticizing Bailey.
        
        The perfect example of a notable individual, known solely for what he wrote, is false Geber. He was an author from before the days of moveable type. Each book had to be copied, by hand, by a skilled scribe. As an unknown he realized his new work would be much more likely to be copied if he claimed it was a forgotten work by someone already famous. So he claimed his work was written by a famous Arabic genius. The result is we know nothing about him, not his age, or nationality, or occupation, or religion. Nothing. Nothing except he was the first person to describe a major advance in chemistry. Yet no one would challenge whether he merits a standalone article. Please remember this example anytime you argue an individual's standalone article should be deleted because it is missing the mundane details of their life. Geo Swan (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        SportingFlyer, when you want to read an article from the NYTimes, and many other newspapers that put their articles behind a paywall, when you have exceeded their limit of free articles, you should use archive.org. Then place the url of the article you can't read in the to be archived box. All nytimes articles, except some of those where they merely republished something from AP or Reuters, will be available for you to read this way.
        
        The head of the White House security office is critically ill with Covid-19
        
        White House Whistle-Blower Did the Unexpected: She Returned to Work
        
        Geo Swan (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the article links, but you're putting words in my mouth. I am not arguing the article should be deleted because it is lacking mundane details. I am arguing it should be deleted because he wasn't notable, he got sick with COVID-19, and he got a smattering of routine press coverage which basically said "white house official gets sick." His name gets mentioned a brief three times in the whistleblower article and only mentions him as the whistleblower's supervisor. If you look closely at how he gets mentioned in the articles before the sickness was reported, it's a fairly clear WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS fail, since no previous coverage is significant in the slightest. None of the keep !votes discuss the fact the articles only relate his testimony or just mention the fact he worked at the white house. I'm willing to reconsider if more coverage can be shown. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Please don't assert BLP1E when it has already been made clear he plays a role in TWO EVENTS.
        I do my best to respond to what I think people meant, even if the surface meaning of what they said is more open to criticism. Honestly, you seemed to be claiming there wasn't enough coverage of the mundane details of his life.
        The New York Times entitled an article about him. So, they considered him to be pretty notable. If they had access to those mundane details of his life, they would have included it.
        You seem to have overlooked Elijah Cummings criticism of Bailey, which I regard as highly significant. Geo Swan (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He has reliable source coverage and he holds a sensitive position in the West Wing and he has been in the news also for his illness and for his testimony to the United States House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Lightburst (talk) 14≥:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Keep, senior level role, member of Agency Transition Directors Council (ATDC), also White House Chief Security Officer, and [4]. Right cite (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His position clearly doesn't qualify under WP:NPOL, and those are all primary sources which don't establish WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Lightburst. As someone who only knew him from his COVID hospitalization, I initially thought this would be a slam-dunk delete as BLP1E, but there was actually quite a lot of coverage of him before his infection, between his ATDC role, his White House role, his Whistleblower stuff, etc. Feoffer (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Press reports quote White House insiders who said Bailey was "gravely ill". Was Bailey merely as notable as his colleagues Carl Kline and Tricia Newbold? No. His colleagues Kline and Newbold played the same central role in giving Jared Kushner clearance to work out of the White House, even though his debts and foreign entanglements disqualified him, but, in addition he is "gravely ill" from Covid 19. In this particular case "gravely ill" means he is expected to die, if it does not mean it is already too late, and he is being maintained on life support. Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's take a look at the sources.

Enjeti, Saagar (2019-07-18). "EXCLUSIVE: Career officials rebut claims of White House interference in security clearance process". The Hill. Four sentences, all related to Bailey's testimony to the Senate. Only mentions that he's a "career White House security official." All other mentions of him in the article relate directly to his testimony. Not SIGCOV.
Strickler, Laura; Dilanian, Ken; Alexander, Peter (25 January 2019). "Officials rejected Kushner for top secret clearance, were overruled". NBC News. Bailey's name does not even appear in this article.
Rogers, Katie (2019-04-01). "White House whistle-blower did the unexpected: She returned to work". The New York Times. His name appears three times in this article, which clearly isn't about him at all: The office’s new director, Crede Bailey, said at the time that Ms. Newbold had refused to “support new procedures your supervisor implemented.” The Republican members also pointed out that she had positive things to say about Mr. Bailey, her current supervisor. Mr. Passman said Mr. Bailey’s two-week suspension of Ms. Newbold was “unwarranted,” but added that “he’s not personally attacking her like Kline did.” None of that is significant coverage of Bailey, it just mentions his role in an event.
Strickler, Laura; Alexander, Peter (2019-02-01). "'Whistleblower' in White House security clearance office is suspended". NBC News. Security office chief Crede Bailey first proposed the suspension on Dec. 3, 2018. Wednesday's notice is signed by Bailey and mentions that in Newbold's 18-year career she has not faced any "prior formal disciplinary action." These are the only mentions of Bailey in the article. Clearly not SIGCOV.
Jacobs, Jennifer (October 7, 2020). "White House Security Official Contracted Covid-19 in September". Bloomberg News. This is technically about him, but it's four sentences and includes the phrase A career federal employee who has seldom appeared in the news, and does not go into any further detail about him other than he's the security official and is gravely ill. He is not being reported on because he is worthy of notability, but rather because he works at the white house and got sick. This is the political equivalent of a sports transaction article. Not sigcov.
Haberman, Maggie; Cooper, Helene (2020-10-08). "The head of the White House security office is critically ill with Covid-19". The New York Times. The article is directly about him, but not only is the article short, his name only appears twice and only describes his duties in the white house and then mentions his case in relation to another outbreak. Not SIGCOV.
Gregorian, Dareh (2010-10-08). "Head of White House security office tests positive for coronavirus". NBC News. Four sentences long, his name only appears once: The official, Crede Bailey, who heads the office that handles credentials for access to the White House, adds to a lengthy list of White House officials who have tested positive for the coronavirus in the past week. Clearly not SIGCOV.

There's lots of routine reporting of the fact he's gravely ill in the similar vein to the Bloomberg article, and I found translations in several languages, but none of the articles say anything other than "White house staffer very sick with COVID." The government documents presented above are primary and don't count. Based on the available sources and with respect to WP:BLP requiring detailed secondary sources for living people, especially private individuals, and WP:NOTNEWS standing for the premise Wikipedia is not a place to post articles which fleet their way through the news cycle as Mr. Bailey's illness did, it's clear Mr. Bailey is not yet notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but the flaw in your argument is your description that the reporting that Bailey is "gravely ill" is "routine". I think if I were to challenge you to find reporting of White House officials' routine illnesses you would find you were not able to do so. Reporters are rarely going to report on a routine illness. A fluff piece, on a celebrity, might mention the celebrity was grumpy from trying to quit smoking, or that quitting smoking had given them the sniffles, or a cough. That would be trivial, but it would be in only one article. However, as you yourself noted, LOTS of RS were reporting Bailey was "gravely ill".
For "Bailey is gravely ill" read "Bailey is not expected to survive", or possibly "Bailey is on life support, and his family have agreed to not pull the plug until voting is over."
Hundreds of individuals must work in the White House, maybe one hundred in the West Wing alone. With that many employees there are going to be the occasional deaths. I looked for reporting on those deaths, and didn't find any recent ones. The last I can remember is that of Vince Foster, which I think erodes your position. Why aren't those deaths ever reported nationally, internationally, while Bailey's imminent death has got LOTS of reporting? Because RS think his illness is significant, not, as you asserted, "routine".
I haven't seen any RS authors who are prepared to risk looking ghoulish, by speaking of how damaging it would be for the Trump campaign if a relatively senior White House official died of the Virus that the POTUS routinely claimed was not that dangerous, and, for which, he routinely ignored precautions.
The large number of RS that report he is gravely ill, and those that note the White House officials have been silent on his health status, mean his illness is itself significant, not "routine", as you assert. Geo Swan (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting is routine because there is not a single piece of coverage that goes into any in depth reporting of him. I would change my vote if there were a full feature story on him, but there's not! "Routine news" is news that would have been reported about anyone, a mad lib story - if anyone who works in the white house, regardless of whether they had received any coverage before, had fallen very ill with COVID, there would have been a news report. I hope he is recovering, that the reports as they stand clearly do not make him permanently wiki-notable, ESPECIALLY considering we have to balance the fact he's otherwise a private WP:BLP, and because there's been no continuing coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Position is far from satisfying WP:NPOL, and the coverage (such as there is) squarely falls within WP:BLP1E: it's only in the context of the subject contracting Covid. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oyi. #1 WP:POL doesn't apply. #2 WP:POL is not exclusionary--that is not meeting WP:POL isn't a reason to delete, even if it did apply. #3 There was coverage quite a bit before he got Covid. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I've shown, he got mentioned before he got COVID, but he didn't get any significant coverage before the COVID-19 impact. Had he not gotten COVID we wouldn't delete him on WP:BLP1E grounds, we would have deleted him for being completely non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 11:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point is that he had coverage in multiple independent sources before this for testifying to the US congress in a whistleblower case. That, by itself, might not be enough to make him meet WP:N, but it certainly puts him outside of WP:BLP1E. Hobit (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I strongly believe that you can't overcome WP:BLP1E for being briefly mentioned during another previous event. If I become famous for something tomorrow, the fact my name has been in the paper before shouldn't mean that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. It shouldn't matter - there's clearly no SIGCOV here regardless - but there is a very good argument WP:BLP1E could apply. SportingFlyer T·C 11:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        SportingFlyer do you remember Chesley Sullenberger - Captain Sully? Someone created an article about him, following the heroic performance of Sully (and the rest of his team - he routinely credits them too)
        
        Well, after the article was started multiple well intentioned individuals tried to delete or redirect that article on BLP1E grounds. I know, it seems hard to believe, now, but that is what the record shows.
        
        When you did a web search on his name you got a firehose of hits fixated on the heroic landing earlier that day. It took all my web-search-fu to confirm my intuition that there would be hits in there, from his web presence prior to the landing, that confirmed he was not a BLP1E.
        
        We have some special purpose notability guidelines, like NPOL you mentioned, that supercede GNG. But well over 99 percent of our biographical articles are about individuals whose notability was not established by one factor, like holding a National office. Well over 99 percent of the individuals we cover in standalone article require a calculation of the notability factors from multiple events before they measure up to our notability criteria. So, yes, of course playing a role in a previous event makes BLP1E a moot point.
        
        If you really mean to challenge the significance of Bailey's role in breaking the White House rules over giving Jared Kushner clearance, then I think you need to do yet another web search:

While Carl Kline was a horrible bully to Tricia Newbold, it was Bailey who recommended disciplining Newbold, with a 2 week suspension, without pay.
Bailey would later justify that discipline by criticizing Newbold for paying more attention to the written guidelines than she did to the verbal instructions of her direct supervisor. Newbold's position, if I understood it correctly, was that she wasn't challenging whether her supervisor had the authority to instruct her to ignore the written guidelines, or to draft new guidelines. She argued, however, that those revised instructions had to be in writing. If she were to follow verbal instructions to flout the guidelines, and a new administration was to initiate an inquiry into how Kushner received a clearance, she would be the fall guy. The written record would show she authorized the clearance, and she would have no way of showing she received verbal instructions to do so.
Bailey asserted she lacked varied experience to understand she should follow verbal instructions, and not insist on a paper trail.
After Newbold testified before the House Oversight Committee it subpoenaed Bailey. After Bailey's testimony Elijah Cummings was extremely critical of "The White House" for its lack of a paper trail justifying Kushner's clearance. He said they hadn't supplied one page of documentation justifying waiving the rules to give him clearance. Okay, for "The White House" read Crede Bailey, as he was the White House official who testified, the one who should have brought the documents to justify the decision.
Newbold had wanted her department to write a memo explaining why the rules were waived for Kushner, her superiors didn't do that, Bailey didn't do that, and Cummings criticized them for a lack of documentation of that decision. I see that as Cummings criticizing Bailey.
The Hill quoted Bailey's assertion that the decision to offer Kushner clearance, even though he didn't meet the criteria for clearance, was not due to political pressure. Cummings didn't seem to find his assertions credible. Geo Swan (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that reply you've now written more on Bailey than any of the articles we've found so far, which is what we ultimately require for notability. It's clear you think what Bailey did was "significant," but as I keep saying and have demonstrated, the coverage of Bailey himself is clearly not significant. None of these articles cover Bailey significantly as a person. They say he testified and got sick and that's it. That's not significant coverage. Also, your Sullenberger anecdote is completely off point, but I will take the bait and say Sullenberger is notable only for one event, but his role in the event was fantastically notable, and he became a public figure as a result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources provided are not convincing to me that this individual has done anything notable per WP:GNG. He played an extremely minor role in two notable events. The six short sentences about his role in the White House COVID outbreak and the Jared Kushner security clearance can easily be merged to White House COVID-19 outbreak and Jared Kushner. There is no need for a separate article on this individual that will never become anything more than a stub, because there is simply not much that can be said about him. ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 05:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Scottywong, you are a longtime contributor. Did you really mean to state you reached your conclusion on ‘’”The sources provided”’’? Longtime contributors know, or should know, that it is the underlying notability of an article’s topic that should be under evaluation at AFD - not the current state of the article. Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't intend to imply that "the article is short, therefore delete it." My point in mentioning the "six sentences" of the article is that I don't believe that much more could be written about this individual, because it doesn't appear that they have really done anything notable. The brief descriptions of this person's minor role in a notable event could easily be mentioned in the main article that covers the event. While there is some verifiable information in the media about this person, I simply don't see the need for a standalone article on him. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 18:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do my best to respond to what my correspondents really mean, if that seems to differ from what they actually said. So, you didn't mean to imply to less experienced contributors that it was okay for them to base their notabiliy conclusions solely on the current state of articles? Great! If that is what you meant above thanks for clarifying that!

With regard to "six sentences", The head of the White House security office is critically ill with Covid-19 is 8 paragraphs long, and the first four paragraphs talk about Bailey. In addition, the article's very headline refers to Bailey - "The head of the White House security office." Geo Swan (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that source. While his name is clearly mentioned twice in that NYT article, and they even give a very brief description of his job, I can't see this article (or any other, for that matter) being used as the basis for a biographical article on this individual. This source verifies two basic facts: he caught COVID-19, and he's the head of the White House security office. That doesn't qualify as WP:SIGCOV in my book. So far, the only claims of notability I've heard about this person is that he caught COVID-19, and he was the supervisor of the person that approved Jared Kushner's security clearance. I just don't see how that turns into a standalone biographical article. Again, this is all great, verifiable information for Jared Kushner#His security clearance and White House COVID-19 outbreak. ‑Scottywong | [babble] || 20:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He also testified to congress about a whitleblower issue. Tha also got coverage. Hobit (talk) 21:18, 19 October 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.

There is no reason for deleting the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The epic byte (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garh Raipur High School

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

Non-notable school which fails WP:GNG. A BEFORE search turned up no significant coverage. My PROD was removed by the creator without giving any reason. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Java Hurricane 07:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per WP:NSCHOOL, schools are not inherently notable and need to pass WP:GNG; this school simply doesn't pass at any level Spiderone 07:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not even attempt to claim notability. --Paul Carpenter (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is written by a school (admin, parent or friend, not a committed editor. Hence, notability is overlooked. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom-- Padavalam🌂 ► 10:23, 28 September 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 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:35, 10 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thrissur North bus stand

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

Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would need to be a pretty special bus station to meet WP:GNG! But, alas, it does not appear to be. 1292simon (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. Nowhere near being notable enough for meeting GNG. Nightfury 12:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine coverage about renovations does not confer notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Spudlace (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the 'coverage' is all completely routine Spiderone 21:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 12:33, 17 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvesh Tiwari

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

Draft written by obvious coi editor & approved by sockpuppet of banned undeclared paid editor. The charitable work is quite minor, as can be seen by lookign at the article. As far as I can tell from the articles, the two awards listed are worded almostthe same--they're promotional awards for his business activities, not his charitable work, and thee's nothing here to show those activities are notable. The awarding body for ref 8 is not the government of India, but a institute founded or sponsored or chartered by the government. It isn ot shown that either award has the prestige to indicate notability DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per DGG's observation and explaination. -Hatchens (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per G11 SmartSE (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotelbeds

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

article approved by now banned sockpuppet of undeclared paid editor. Promotional and non-notable, fails WP:NCORP Every reference here is either a mere notice or straight-out promotion. Almost all are published in trade magazines, which are not reliable sources for notability , because they will generally accept promotional articles, as can be shown by actually looking at the items here. As a typical device to add verisimilitude to a promotional article, one negative mention is included (ref 22) DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this looks like a G11 case if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical UPE nonsense. The references are all routine announcements of sales, acquisitions, expansions etc., promotional interviews, and press releases, i.e. the kinds of sources that WP:NCORP explicitly states do not establish notability. Spicy (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pure promotional material trying to masquerade as an encyclopedic article.TH1980 (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rock It! (TV series)

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

I found no notability per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would a Redirect to Network 10 work, since it was shown on that channel? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nationally broadcast television shows are usually notable, although this one only lasted six months. I've found one source from an article in The Age: "Rock It science" (Jan 28, 2007). — Toughpigs (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nationally aired shows are indeed notable as per NTV provided that they are sourced well, and one ref isn't enough to do that. Has been tagged for over 9 years without any improvements. I think it's time to say goodbye. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donbass Development Center

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite significant to me, with plenty of references, none of which I can read. Is this a political nomination? Rathfelder (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article sources demonstrate this meets GNG. // Timothy :: talk 16:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a leaflet (advertisement) of a not significant initiative which is based in occupied Donetsk. There is a reason to consider this article as a covert political campaign aimed into English speaking world. --Synhuliak (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an article based entirely on original sources is basically original research. I'm also highly suspicious of what appears to be whitewashing here. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent third-party coverage found in Google search, which returned just one page of primary sourcing (charity sites, etc.) Article was created by a single-purpose account solely as a promotional piece and has remained in this state since its creation four years ago. It namedrops organizations such as UNICEF in a failed attempt at establishing notability while linking to literally nothing else. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:57, 18 October 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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saajan Bakery Since 1962

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Not yet released. The only in-depth coverage I could find is an interview with the director that is churnalism, regurgitated on numerous news sites, so not constituting independent coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pass WP:NFF ,because film in post-production completed and release stuck due to COVID-19 pandemic in Kerala. I think film releasing soon ,through OTT platform, like Prime video or Netflix.--Chennai Passangai (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chennai Passangai: You've misunderstood WP:NFF. It says that films that haven't started principal photography are unlikely to be notable. It doesn't say that every film that has completed principal photography is automatically notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But @Curb Safe Charmer: bro, film is notable and news references are available and bro what is mean by principle photography?. --Chennai Passangai (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chennai Passangai: Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS to understand why that's not a valid argument, and principal photography. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 10 October 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. No sources showing significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources were put forward. Scope creep's analysis of sources seems to confirm that none of the current sources provide significant coverage. While there are some editors who believe this individual is notable, that belief needs to be backed up by sources to establish that notability. ‑Scottywong | [spout] || 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksiy Shevchuk

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is one of the most significant and resonant lawyers and pubic figures in Ukrainian legal sphere. There is enough references to cover the biography of the living person like this guy. Most of the sources are in Ukrainian, but I can see it's an adapted translation from Ukrainian or Russian wikipedia. Honestly saying, I'm surprised to see this article in AfD section. --Siedunovah (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator has a right to ignore this comment as it doesn't refer explicitly to Wikipedia policy. Subjective statements like the above are not suitable for Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia notability standards for BLP's are much higher in terms of what is required, than other Wikipedias. scope_creep^Talk 16:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the person described in the page discussed meets the criteria of WP:BLP. The biography is short enough to cover basic facts and doesn't violate NPOV, NOR or V. --Siedunovah (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oleksiy Shevchuk is a person who is considered as a lawyer and claimer of political and judicial systems in Ukraine. His personality was illuminated by independant media sources. The facts are not based on biased sources or disinformation sources. --Hanna Haid (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of it being entirely subjective as it, "oh, he is a lawyer, lets have a article", lets have any objective examination of coverage and the sources as they stand:

[5] Lawyer Oleksiy Shevchuk, who is representing Oleh Bakhmatyuk in a criminal case concerning refinancing of VAB Bank, today, 29 November, filed a complaint against.. This is a passing mention. Fails WP:SIGCOV
[6]] Confirms he is a lawyer. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
[7] Oleksiy SHEVCHUK, lawyer, managing partner of Shevchuk & Partners: Small profile page. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
[8] Alexey Shevchuk: "I used to call things by their names" An interview. A dependent source. Primary.
[9] In Onishchenko's and Nasirov's cases suspects are protected by the same lawyers (added) Passing mention. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
[10] Censor.NET was informed about this by his lawyer Aleksey Shevchuk. Passing mention. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
[11] said lawyer Oleksiy Shevchuk, who represents Klitschko's interests in these cases Fails WP:SIGCOV.
[12] "Today we informed all law enforcement agencies where Bakhmatyuk is. We have officially announced three times today, as of now, the Anti-Corruption Court, where Mr. Bakhmatyuk is and what way to communicate with him is possible… There are no grounds for any search for Mr. Bakhmatyuk. "What information that has been repeatedly reported on the Slovo i Dilo portal ... is fake," Shevchuk said Another passing in mention in relation to his work. Fails WP:SIGCOV.

I'm not going to do the rest of them. Ref 9,10 and 11 are Non-RS. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Like any working, he is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is really a problem with great links, however it concerns all Ukrainian lawyers and MP's. If to dig deep enough, half of the Ukrainian members of parliament are not verifiable and so on. My point is not to justify some other problems and I know it's not an argument (so please, don't bite me :) But it is a common problem, not just in this case. So, it can be helpful to focus on general notability of the person, which is easily seen even from this article. I think the article at least should be expanded as its Ukraininan corresponding version is much larger and it can help to help with Significant coverage. --Synhuliak (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has made few edits to Wikipedia and is WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 19:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my UA account you can see a decent contribution. However, you decided to stigmatize me on purpose to show how miserable is my account. I think such behaviour is not what is expected to be seen here. Accept my apologizes, if I made you angry. Peace :) --Synhuliak (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per source analysis above. 1292simon (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - this is a bit tricky because I don't speak Ukrainian and can't do a thorough WP:BEFORE, but based on what's there now, there isn't a single piece of biographical coverage in the media. All his biographical info comes from professional directory or licensing listings, which can be self-submitted. His cases with his firm got coverage, and his shows have YouTube links (but oddly not media coverage), but I'd like to see a single profile of him in any media source. Otherwise this is a delete. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify He probably is notable , but the current version needs to be written in the manner of an English language WP article. DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Peters

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, and the redirect to Martha Speaks keeps getting reverted (last AfD ended with a redirect to the show). I'd suggest either outright deletion or a delete-and-redirect to Martha Speaks or My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Probably WP:TOOSOON for this one. KidAd talk 22:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actress. Even though she has multiple other Wikipedia entries (on "minor" WPs such as Winaray (Philippines), Ban-lam-gu (Chinese), etc.), those articles are just one sentence, basically containing "Madeleine Peters is a Canadian actress." That's it. And they contain no sources whatsoever. At least the English article contains some sources - even though they are just a database and an interview. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not even remotely close to passing GNG. Interviews do not add towards passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 12 October 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Calderón

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

Prod was removed, I don't see how this player passes WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG despite the claim on the talk page. Govvy (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the Ecuadorian league is weird case where it's not listed as fully pro on WP:FOOTY, so you have to decide on WP:GNG to decide if you keep the page or not. However, this particular footballer has played in the Copa Libertadores and has played for the biggest Ecuadorian teams so probably enough to keep. Maybe could be fixed up a bit.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ecuatorial league is a professional league, so the subject does qualify for WP:NFOOTBALL. Such league is much more important and professional than Brasileiro Serie C, for example. Finally, WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant here, and has the same relevance as an WP:ESSAY as wikiprojects do not get to decide things alone. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you actually read through NFooty and GNG? Also there is no indication that Ecuadorian league is fully-professional. Govvy (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For PROD'ing such an article, if someone did not read the guidelines, I'd say it was you. Feel invited to review WP:PROD too. Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around for years, now I think you're just being rude. :/ Govvy (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your question was rude to begin with. I made a pretty honest vote, to which I am asked "have you even read the guidelines?". Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 08:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a simple yes or no question. I consider you new here so I am trying to give you a chance, but to me you are starting to act like you've been around for years and your account isn't that old in my opinion. You voted to delete another article which is really a keep and you vote keep for this article which lacks WP:SIGCOV. So please don't play people for falls they don't like that. You are getting dangerously close to smelling like a WP:DUCK. Govvy (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion crossed the limits of the AfD. I'm answering you on your talk page. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:Govvy blanked the comment on their talk page; needless to say, Govvy's comment was rude ... the word "actually" didn't need to be there, and the use of, was unnecessary - not sure what else is going on, but let's be real here for once. Nfitz (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if Ecuador's Barcelona is a fully pro club then this player does meet NFOOTY based on the fact that they have played in Copa Libertadores matches against Botafogo, Estudiantes etc. Spiderone 10:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If Barcelona SC can be proven as fully-professional then I am okay to change my vote but until then I think this should be deleted. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - to suggest that the top Ecuadorian league isn't fully professional is laughable. It's not listed on WP:FPL because of a lack of sources - but simply common sense says that teams in a relatively wealthy country in front of tens of thousands of people are fully-professional. No one has ever found any sources saying they aren't fully-professional either! And not surprisingly, they meet WP:GNG, as you'd expect for a player with years of experience in fully-professional leagues, see one, two, three, four. Nfitz (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Ecuador's professional league soccer was created on 20 April 2018, according to LigaPro, and the first two divisions (Serie A and Serie B) are managed by it. Tárik (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG clearly met as evidenced by Nfitz. Article creator Tárik showing evidence that strongly suggests we're talking about a fully pro league anyway Spiderone 16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep scrapes though GNG as per Nfitz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it probably looks like it's as "fully professional" as many other leagues accepted as that. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 12 October 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [express] || 16:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Tangshan earthquake

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

Non-notable event. This is an encyclopedia (not an earthquake catalog). Dawnseeker2000 08:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to 1976 Tangshan earthquake: I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory and shouldn’t include every minor earthquake. Even though this isn’t a major earthquake with casualties, this is a bit more than a minor earthquake.
There is enough significant coverage from independent reliable sources for this earthquake to overwhelmingly pass WP:GNG. There's a lot of in-depth local and national coverage (e.g. Xinhua), but more importantly there is also substantial international coverage including: South China Morning Post (link), CNA (link), Associated Press (link), Fox News (link), Hindustan Times (link). The SCMP article, for instance, goes into more than just routine coverage and describes its structural damage, its geological and cultural link to the massive 1976 Tangshan earthquake, and its temporary effects on infrastructure.
If one looks at WP:EVENTCRITERIA, this passes GNG by a mile, is more than just a routine event, and is also likely to continue to have a lasting effect not least due to the geological significance of the fault. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC); added merge option per my follow-up comment 20:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also follow-up coverage in August 2020: Xinhua. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, if the article is not kept, merging this article to Aftermath of 1976 Tangshan earthquake is a viable alternative to deletion. Many of the articles describe this as geologically related to the 1976 earthquake. Its cultural significance is largely in its geographic coincidence with the 1976 earthquake. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree Wikipedia should not be a catalogue for earthquakes, but in this instance the earthquake is notable. It satisfies WP:GNG. RandomIntrigue (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the exception of the Xinhua article, basically everything is a regurgitation of the six-sentence AP report. As WP:EFFECT states, A minor earthquake or storm with little or no impact on human populations is probably not notable. There is no continued coverage, just day-of coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Power~enwiki: The SCMP article has 19 sentences, significantly more than a regurgitation of the six-sentence AP report. This article by Xinhua is continued coverage. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LASTING. This was a routine run of the mill event. // Timothy :: talk 12:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTNEWS#2 so while many events may garner lots of news, that is something different than encyclopedic value. Geschichte (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an earthquake in which people die is most certainly not a run-of-the-mill event. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself says that there was no death or injury resulting from this minor earthquake which did not even cause major damage. StellarHalo (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing notable about this particular quake that was a whole 5 with minor damage and no fatalities reported. Sources cited herein make only brief mentions. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to 1976 Tangshan earthquake. A new section in that article can be started with the title "Later earthquakes" or "the 2020 earthquake" or something like that. I was going to vote to keep due to the coverage, but WP:NOTNEWS covers that. However, several of the sources are comparing the new earthquake to the 1976 earthquake. I therefore believe it can be selectively merged into a new section there. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not an outright delete, I like this suggestion. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:48, 18 October 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | [prattle] || 16:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Krampf

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

This article was entirely unsourced for fourteen years and sounds like an autobiography written in third-person. Recently he's been arrested for possession of child porn and now he's on local news in the United States, but that begs the question, does this make him notable? I would argue no; before he was a scientist with no claim of notability, now he's a scientist and criminal with no claim of notability. A majority of the article pertaining to who he is and what he has done remains unsourced and he has less than 10,000 subscribers on YouTube. Definitely not a notable person in my opinion. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CentreLeftRight, It's irrelevant how many YouTube subscribers he has: all that matters is that there are sources establishing notability. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have not yet looked at the article to evaluate its notability. But in general, an arrest for child porn should stay out of the article; it's only once he's convicted (if he is) that we should cover it. I could point you to a previous example of a notable academic with the same issue, where despite newspaper coverage of the child porn arrest we kept it out of the article, but I won't because it might be considered a WP:BLP violation just to name names here. So in any case, what we need to evaluate is the notability that was present before this event. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the part about the arrest per WP:BLPCRIME. XOR'easter (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The coverage of his more recent (YouTube-era) career is pretty spotty; this is about the best I could find, and I'd hardly call that in-depth. But he did get in the news for criticizing the FCAT standardized test, and there are some older stories about his doing "Mr. Electricity" shows. XOR'easter (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was just arrested for child porn. So he may be an example that helps prevent these crimes in the future. I’d leave the article and add a section for the arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:4800:a010:d950:691e:84f9:ef61 (talk • contribs)

Keep Revisiting the topic a couple days later, I think the links I included above are enough to meet the general notability guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum His trial is scheduled for December [13]. Per David Eppstein's comment, I don't think WP:BLP permits our writing about it until it is concluded, nor is there a pressing need to do so. (The stories of his career are from twenty years or more ago; on the one hand, notability is not temporary, but on the other, he hardly seems to be a high-profile individual at this point.) I trimmed the article way back to a two-sentence stub supported by the older news stories linked above, so the text is no longer adulatory, and the autobiography concerns mentioned in the nomination are no longer operative. XOR'easter (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete right now the aticle is a puff piece that covers up Mr. Krampf's alleged crimes. However to mention the alleged crimes will turn it into an attack article. The sourcing is low quality human interest stories often of the local event variety. The sourcing does not justify an article, and we cannot avoid mentioning the criminal accusations, but they themselves are not really notable, so there is no need for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there is a refusal to allow any contents about his arrest makes me think having this article is highly questionable since people want it to just be a hagiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was this person notable prior to their arrest? More discussion is needed on that than on the inclusion/exclusion of the arrest (for which BLP policy and normal procedures is quite clear).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, in absence of any request from the subject. The coverage in the LA Times is a fairly profile of the subject. I didn't manage to view the coverage in the Sun-Sentinel, but I did see ongoing coverage about his activism concerning the FCAT. I think it's weakly enough to meet GNG. I'll remark that pre-trial notability is marginal enough that I would certainly support a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE; under the circumstances, there's a moderate chance that one will come. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:PROF. Honestly, this sounds like a run of the mill touring "edutainer". Any allegations of crimes do not rise to the level of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 13 October 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 no consensus. Sandstein 14:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Name Rights Coalition

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

It exists, but there is very little little in-depth coverage uncovered in a WP:BEFORE search. Current sourcing is 2 primary sources, a government hearing transcript, and a short article in an industry publication which might be part of a pr campaign. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this article. I understand that there is minimal information in the article at present, but it is a starting point and with the passage of time I hope other edits are made to beef up the article. I do not believe this article merits deletion. I have no association, personally, with the Coalition but it has played a pivotal role, historically, in lobbying and advocating for the interests of individuals in domain name system policy. Its staff have testified before the US Congress, among other bodies, and its staff have also been quoted in respected publications like the New York Times.^[1] And it is not a public facing organization, so it does not need/desire to engage in PR campaigns. I believe it is important to document on Wikipedia the different organizations, no matter how invisible they may sometimes be to the public, that are shaping public policy if they have resources and influence.Ferdeline (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are several issues at hand, the lack of independence of ICANN, Network Solutions and consumer choice, and the expanding range of TLD's that are occurring and unfolding as we write and consider. President George W. Bush did not do the world any favours by keeping control of the internet in the US of A. That was a feckless act. Keep, and strengthen the references. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The only news source I found is from Domain Name Wire. It has found more coverage in the books, notably [14], [15], [16] and [17]. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the above sourcing appear to be either simple mentions, or primary sourcing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Richtel, Matt (1998-05-28). "You Can't Always Judge a Domain by Its Name". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-09-23.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 10 October 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. ‑Scottywong | [confer] || 16:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of people and organizations sanctioned in relation to human rights violations in Belarus

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

This list violates our WP:BLP policy. It is a list of a single, potentially deprecatory attribute of a large number of (mostly, but not exclusively) non-WP:N persons such as junior military officers like majors and captains. Each person's inclusion is cited to a single, primary source. It has no encyclopedic value. Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in line with other similar articles. We are not accusing these people of crimes, we are just citing some official decisions here. Such sanctions are quite a notable event. P.S. Ideally, the article could be expanded from a list to a larger article. -- НСНУ (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "We are not accusing these people of crimes, we are just citing some official decisions here." We don't have a "List of People Charged with 2nd Degree Vandalism in Canton, Ohio" even though we could cite such a list to court charging documents and other primary sources, just like this list. At least half of the individuals in this list are WP:NOTPUBLICFIGUREs and fall under our presumption in favor of privacy. Many of them are captains and majors with no articles and no possibility of getting an article under WP:N. And to omit the ones whose inclusion is a violation of BLP then makes this an incomplete and inaccurate list. Any mention of individuals under sanction should be in the relevant biography. Wikipedia is not in the business of maintaining "enemies of America" lists, which is what this is. Chetsford (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is by no means an 'enemies of america list' it has value in the same way thatList of people sanctioned during the Russo-Ukrainian War does. Both lists provide useful information about international response to protest movement. that said this article needs a serious clean up. blindlynx (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, that's next on my to do list. Chetsford (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of many such perfect valid list of historically significant encyclopedia content. Dream Focus 02:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested what the policy-based rationale is for this being "perfectly valid"? Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see little commentary from the !keep votes that speaks to whether this article meets relevant policies and guidelines, especially those that Chetsford has put forward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a list of people who have been sanctioned as part of a notable current event. The article isn't accusing anyone of anything, it is merely presenting factual information about who has been sanctioned as part of the international response to the ongoing events in Belarus. Calling it an 'enemies of America list' is a fairly silly accusation considering the breadth of the international response. Arianna the First (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a list of people who have been sanctioned as part of a notable current event. The article isn't accusing anyone of anything, it is merely presenting factual information about who has been sanctioned as part of the international response to the ongoing events in Belarus." I agree with all of the preceding recitation of facts. However, none of this is a policy-based argument for why it should be kept; it is, as noted, simply a recitation of observable facts about the article. Chetsford (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly you're motivation for this request appears to be the POV that these sorts of lists are 'enemies of america' lists. The fact these sanctions have been levied is notable and a list is the best way to present that information. Further, your argument that people on this list aren't notable goes against WP:NNC that states "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists". The fact these sanctions have been levied is notable and a list is the best way to present that information. blindlynx (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be updated as there are new lists being introduced now as part of International reactions to the 2020 Belarusian presidential election and protests Czalex 20:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs serious clean up not deletion. Given that it's based on a current event that's not surprising tough. Also it isn't an "enemies of America list" as the EU, UK and Canada have also levied sanctions. Not to mention Belarusians themselves have praised sanctions. Similarly to the list of sanctions levied during maidan it provides useful information about who is involved in current events from a international point of view. blindlynx (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The material needs to be completely cited with sources that unambiguously meet the RS standard, since this has to do with BLPs. Given that, and the geographic location and the controversial nature of the topic, to require anything less than perfect sourcing is unacceptable. // Timothy :: talk 14:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Serious unsourced BLP content here Spudlace (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is unsourced and nobody has been able to produce any significant coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 13:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Madrasathul Ibrahimiyya

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

Non-notable private Islamic college. PepperBeast (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG; even when searching for "அல் மத்ரஸதுல் இப்ராஹீமிய்யா", very few sources come up; the only reliable one looks to be this but it's a passing mention Spiderone 21:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HumorFeed

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

No significant coverage per WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per what the AFD nominator has presented, after doing a rough search I didn't find much in favor of notability for this page, it seems like there's a little coverage by other known websites and outlets, but little to meet or create notability, more of a WP:FAILN. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 19:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close Up (1996 film)

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

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources that would lend to the view that this is a notable work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being Will Arnett's debut doesn't stop this from failing WP:NFILM. Has zero reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rothen Tomatoes is not valid source, as it ratins can skew the public consensus about invidual films with poor or great reviews that are not based on the reality of film's actual quality, but with that said if IMDB (not valid source eather) page is anything to go by this film was shoot on 16mm, which higlight that this film was probably never intended for any kind of theatrical release. That in on itself knocks down the notability let alone the fact that its not DTV sequel to previous theatrical release DoctorHver (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Academic genealogy of theoretical physicists

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

Despite its current length, it is nowhere near complete and presumably is open-ended anyways. On the other hand, it will never be truly complete since most entries will not meet WP:LISTCRITERIA. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not the right place for this kind of list. Projects like PhysicsTree offer a much better infrastructure for this kind of information (observe how awkward the current list handles co-advisors). If anything, the information contained in this list should be migrated to Wikidata using the doctoral advisor (P184) and doctoral student (P185) properties.

(Note: there was a previous AfD in 2006) --bender235 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the phrasing, like If an advisor did not exist [...] an academic genealogical link can be constructed suggests that this is an OR project; it's fine to invent a method of gap-filling for one's own personal tree-building hobby, but Wikipedia articles shouldn't be doing so. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Parts of it may be original research, but I'm not convinced we shouldn't leave templates demanding it be fixed and give editors a chance to work on it. There are several websites devoted to this topic and original research doesn't need to be done and it would not take that long to strip the article of problematic phrases. Also, See Template:Dynamic list, a dynamic list is by no means a reason to delete an article, though the template should be used. The only real claim for a deletion then, is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and I will leave other editors to debate that. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I hate to throw the pupa out with the dihydrogen monoxide, but this is a huge, mostly unsourced, mess. Userfy if you absolutely must for the children. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 13 October 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. No valid rationale for deletion, and this appears to be related to ongoing disruption which has resulted in many blocks for sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires

AfDs for this article:

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

This page looks more like an article of colonialism, the list is not simple and the "sources" are repetitive, instead of using several sources for each empire, they use almost the same source for all empires, which prevents the list from being collaborative, and so it does not correspond to the title "List of Largest Empires, I also read on the talk page", the list is not being discussed collaboratively, and the way it is, the list is static when using the same methods and theories for each empire, for this is no longer a free list, and therefore subject to being eliminated --(Klotes (talk) 18:25, 10 October 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 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vexatious nomination. Clearly a notable list which passes WP:NLIST aiding readers with navigation and providing information. Lightburst (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenkins–Laporte doctrine

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

I am flagging this article as a potential candidate for deletion for several reasons.

First, I have not been able to locate any reliable sources that reference this "doctrine" independent from this article on Wikipedia. This also comports with my prior experience as a U.S. intellectual property lawyer. I have never heard of this "doctrine" and have been unable to locate any reliable sources that consider it to be an independent "doctrine" of law. A header requesting additional sources has been pending since 2008 as well, which is further evidence of a lack of reliable sources.

Second, I am also doubtful of the notability of this alleged "doctrine" for the reasons discussed above. The only sources I have seen discussing it are ones that circularly reference this page.

In closing, if others are able to locate reliable sources that support the existence of this "doctrine," I am happy to avoid deletion. But there are a LOT of important cases out there and not all of them are established "doctrines." Calling a particular a case a "doctrine," in my opinion, should be reserved for those rules of law that are long established, universally accepted, and blessed by at least an appellate court, if not the Supreme Court itself. I have not located any evidence that this is the case here.

Also, this article was written by a confirmed sockpuppet apparently, so I consider that also weighing in favor of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocFreeman24 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DocFreeman24 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found like two references to it, none of them in-depth. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ying Qiao Junior High School

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

Nominated for AfD during NPP reviewing. WP:Before shows no significant or independent coverage of this Taiwanese junior high school in English or Chinese language sources, thus failing WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Also note that secondary schools like this one are not considered inherently notable because they exist. There is no sourced content in the article suitable for merging at the date of nomination, but I am open to redirect as ATD if participants may suggest a suitable target -- Dps04 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to locale per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 174.254.193.255 (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we only keep articles on schools where people complete their secondary education, and this is not such a school. It lacks the true indications of strong notability we need to keep for any institution below secondary education completion level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 12 October 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 18:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Makaya

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

Initially declined as a draft by Number 57 for "...not yet shown to meet notability guidelines" and then accepted without improvement by a paid editor now blocked for deception. The article subject still does not qualify under either the WP:GNG or the applicable SNG WP:NFOOTY. Examining the sources in the article for the former shows that they do not meet all three prongs of significance, independence, and reliability. Most importantly, the sources that are significantly about this athlete are not independent (being mostly from his college team) and the independent ones are not significantly about the article subject or only mention him in passing. Turning to NFOOTY, they have not played in any competitive senior international match nor in any fully professional league. Their only applicable experience is with Philadelphia Fury, a team in the fourth version of the American Soccer League, which never achieved US Division 3 sanction and was instead sanctioned by the non-professional United States Adult Soccer Association. WP:BEFORE does not disclose any sources that would assist either notability guideline and no logical merger or redirect target exists. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete due to only being accepted at AfC by a paid editor. Cleary fails WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 19:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass GNG as he has nothing more than passing mentions in secondary sources Spiderone 10:34, 11 October 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. I am withdrawing. Clearly this was a mistake on my part. Subject of this article passes WP:NACTOR. (non-admin closure) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi Blaq

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

Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Hits I can see are all to interviews (i.e., not independent sources). Doing my part to clean up the mess left by Lapablo (see this permalink) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Although I understand the community is currently grossly disappointed in Lapablo & rightfully so, but the subject of our discussion does satisfy WP:NACTOR as they have appeared in significant lead roles in movies & also satisfies WP:ANYBIO as they have won the best actor in a leading role at the most prestigious movie award in Africa, which is the AMVCA which is akin to winning an Oscar. Confirm here. Celestina007 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Celestina007. I wasn't aware of how prestigious the Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards were. I'll close this once one more keep !vote arrives, as it looks like I made a mistake here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AleatoryPonderings, you aren’t to blame & your actions are justifiable as everyone is pissed at Lapablo, his tp is filled with speedy deletions which is relatively the normal response from the community in cases such as Lapablo’s. Celestina007 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Celestina007. Subject passes both GNG and NACTOR. To buttress the point of Celestina007, here are some more sources across Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, SA, etc. that demonstrate the significance of AMVCA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:51, 13 October 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 18:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of Latvia association football goalscoring record

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

For the following reasons:

Per consensus established in this similar AfD.
No evidence that the topic of 'progression of ___ goalscoring record' meets the requirements for a stand-alone list as per WP:LISTN
There are issues with WP:NOTSTATS as well
Wikipedia is more than simply a mirror of RSSSF and IFFHS per WP:NOTMIRROR
Also borderline WP:SYNTH concerns

No prejudice against merging if a suitable target is suggested.

Spiderone 16:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Latvia national football team records or similar article. Giant Snowman 20:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I called it SYNTH earler because the sources don't state that each goal was a goalscoring record, it has to be surmised and manually counted by the compiler. The merge target proposed above doesn't exist. Geschichte (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:GNG.WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 16:03, 12 October 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 18:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Maynard Borja Erece

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. No evidence that in addition to graduating law school at a young age he is notable as a lawyer. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. There is nothing about this entry that seems notable and seems solely an individual effort to promote a particular individual.DocFreeman24 (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is one article in a regional New Zealand newspaper, the Waikato Times, about him being the youngest qualified lawyer. Not enough to reach notability on its own though. NealeFamily (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep/Disagree with proposed deletion with Nealefamily points of fact comment: Other articles of notability apart from waikato times include 9 news and media (Australia). refer to link https://www.9news.com.au/national/18-year-old-becomes-youngest-law-graduate-in-australian-history/c0522499-2d31-4b5d-90d9-4f6592b1f2e9

Philippine Canadian Inquirer link http://www.canadianinquirer.net/2015/04/22/australias-youngest-law-graduate-is-an-18-year-old-filipino/

Legal cheek from the UK (lawyers and law student sites Uk) link https://www.legalcheek.com/2015/09/an-18-year-old-kid-has-qualified-as-a-solicitor/

Australasian lawyer magazine link https://www.thelawyermag.com/au/news/general/18-year-old-law-graduate-one-of-the-youngest-ever/198107

Please keep/Disagree with proposed deletion to aleatory ponderings on points of fact referring to notability guidelines : On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.67.221 (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You have voted twice already. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the youngest person to receive a law degree in a particular place is nota a sign of notability. Also, we generally discount human interest stories as showing notability which some of the sources clearly are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to "vote" for Keeping the article. However, the arguments of the community convienced me. The person slightly fails to meet basic WP criteria. It's not about age or lack of sources, but about general notability. --Synhuliak (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from being the youngest law graduate, an indication of WP:BLP1E. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working on adding verifiable references as objectively as possible to work out problems on neutral point of view. Suggest improvements on article please rather than deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.67.221 (talk) Moving out-of-place IP comment AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- IP, please put any future comments at the bottom of the page, as opposed to disrupting my nomination statement. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per solid rationale by AleatoryPonderings, this is a classic example of WP:BLP1E. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the question is then, does it satisfy each of the three conditions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.67.221 (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Google also returns "About 876 results" only, which is somehow an indicator that the subject isn't notable. HiwilmsTalk 12:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship

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

A local ~~youth~~ junior grade competition that, in my view, does not meet the notability requirements. There is some local coverage [18] [19] but lacks the coverage required for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT.

Also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. RE "local youth competition". To confirm, the "junior" in the title doesn't refer to age. It refers to grade. See Glossary_of_Gaelic_games_terms#J. Nom might want to qualify. If the age of the competition's participants was a factor in the nominator's proposal, then the nom may want to review that factor... Guliolopez (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edited, thanks Spiderone 13:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Winners+ runners-up of this and 6 others get to compete in the Cork Junior A Hurling Championship. So this is a sub-county division. Surely much too low a level to warrant year-by-year coverage. Duhallow Junior A Hurling Championship is enough. Nigej (talk) 10:48, 15 October 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. Those in favor of deletion argued that the topic was too trivial to warrant an encyclopedia page, but a clear consensus emerged that it meets the general notability guideline and should therefore be kept. (non-admin closure) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George H. W. Bush broccoli comments

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

Very much a WP:ROTM event. Not something that should require an article about it, and likely not even for a mention elsewhere. --IWI (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember this controversy. The comment caused consternation for the Broccoli growers and garnered national attention. GHWB had to back-peddle, and it was major news. With that said, another GHWB controversy (George H. W. Bush judicial appointment controversies) could be renamed to George H. W. Bush controversies and then include this as a heading. North American Free Trade Agreement can also be included as a controversial topic. Lightburst (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very noteworthy, hundreds if not thousands of articles with significant discussion and analysis and retrospective discussion. Right cite (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing demonstrates this passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ROTM? This was mentioned in multiple assessments and obituaries published or republished in UK WP:RS broadsheet newspapers 1 2 3 4 5. Narky Blert (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think many of you are forgetting that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Just because many newspapers have spoken about it, does not mean it is notable for a standalone article. I cannot see any encyclopedia having an article on this. It's also somewhat ridiculous to have an entire article about whether George H W Bush liked broccoli or not. --IWI (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not just newspapers that have covered this. Many books do so too. Wikipedia covers the ridiculous if independent reliable non-news sources have significant coverage of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ROTM is neither policy nor guideline and so is not a reason to delete. In any case, the matter was not routine – it was quite exceptional and memorable. And note that there has been continuing coverage and so expansion is required: How broccoli became a political hot potato: Provocative remarks by President Obama about his favourite vegetable have reignited a bitter ideological debate. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination does not address the many reliable sources currently used in the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. But I'm sure this will be WP:SNOW kept. KidAd talk 02:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was clearly not a controversy, but a novelty. The page is well-written above the average and has lots of sources, but having deliberated, the whole event is too unsubstantial to be encyclopedia material. Geschichte (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His attitude to broccoli is covered in detail in many sources, including dry academic books and articles. I don't think I'm untypical (for an Englishman) in that the first two things I remember about the George H. W. Bush presidency are that he led the effort to chuck Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait and that he hated broccoli. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes two of us. Narky Blert (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with me about remembrances or with Bush about broccoli? Or maybe you co-led the effort to chuck Saddam's forces out of Kuwait? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on George H. W. Bush and put it in a broader perspective. This is not substantial enough to merit its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any more than a sentence or two about this at George H. W. Bush would be WP:UNDUE. Surely this is better as a summary-style spinoff article rather than this whole content being merged to the main article? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. If you think this is stupid, have you see WP:ODD? Bearian (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Phil Bridger spinoffs from an article like George H. W. Bush are expected Spudlace (talk) 04:12, 15 October 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. There's a general consensus that this musician has received enough coverage to pass the basic bar of notability to warrant an article, though there is substantial dissatisfaction with the article's current state. ~ mazca ^talk 13:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cosgrove

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

No evidence that he meets WP:BAND standards. Most coverage seems to be of local artist variety. only (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. only (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is college press and run-of-the-mill local stuff only. Nothing significant pointing to notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Ben Cosgrove is a nationally known performer, composer, and writer. In addition to performing all over the country, both as a solo performer and with well-known bands, he has had essays published in nationally recognized journals. He is profiled here, among many other places: https://landscapemusic.org/composers-network/ben-cosgrove/. Udeyoung (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BAND and WP:GNG are satisfied by significant coverage in several independent reliable sources, including a Simon & Schuster-published book, Connecticut Public Radio, Harvard Magazine, and various regional outlets. (Although Harvard Magazine is affiliated with the university, it is editorially independent, has a circulation of ~260,000 and is not akin to a college newspaper.) Cosgrove also meets WP:BAND standards as a prominent representative of landscape-oriented music, as evidenced by his media coverage and artist residencies. 2601:155:4280:F910:F148:62BF:DEF1:6107 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To correct a misstatement above, the book cited is not a Simon & Schuster publication. The editor apparently has mistaken the difference between being published by S&S with being a client of the company's distribution services [20]. The publisher is in fact, according to the book's frontispiece, licensed by a client independent publisher Cider Mill Press (click on "look" tab for verification.) [21] It is copyrighted to and licensed from Appleseed Press, which according to this company profile has a single employee [22], normally indicative of being the book's author's own self-publishing vanity press, shopped to and licensed by an Independent publisher. Such sources are not subject to editorial oversight and fail to meet significant source criteria per WP:USESPS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this - point taken. The "Publisher" listed on the S&S website, Cider Mill Press, does not appear to be in the self-publishing business and does appear to exercise editorial oversight. [23] Also, Appleseed Press is apparently the parent company of Cider Mill Press, not an entity associated with the book's author. [24] In any event, given that the book is one of several sources cited, I'm not sure it changes the analysis in the end. 2601:155:4280:F910:78C8:44F8:2873:35C1 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I think that if somebody volunteers to trim this down to a stub, it could be saved, but right now, I can't bother to go through every Twitter reference and local newspaper account. I think this can be rescued, but someone more familiar with his genre of music needs to do it. I asked (Ping me) I shall be brutal. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I will try to be a Good Samaritan and help wrap this up after an entire month, but who knows if I am actually contributing to a clear consensus. In any case, I'm not buying the statement above that Cosgrove is a nationally-known musician, but he has been noticed by the specialty press in classical/avant garde music, and several local publications in New England that can be considered reliable, if not particularly significant. This may help him qualify for a basic stub article, though the previous commenter is correct on how the article needs to have a lot of extraneous info and unreliable sources removed. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS

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 Cavan Senior Hurling Championship. ‑Scottywong | [gossip] || 16:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Cavan Senior Hurling Championship

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

A local competition which does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong here but a BEFORE search didn't seem to turn up enough coverage. Spiderone 12:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Per nom, even after finding a few refs to expand the article into a semi-passable state, I'm not sure there is enough to support GNG/SIGCOV. The only references available are trivial passing mentions, including in an interview with one of the participating sportspeople and generic lists of results. The latter, in particular, confirm that the events took place and what the outcomes were. But they do not establish any notability. At all. That NOT A SINGLE OUTLET (not local, national, online or otherwise) have even the shortest of write-ups on the final is particularly telling. In all honesty I wonder if all of the related articles (on the 2020, 2016, 2015, 2014 and 2013 events) should simply be merged/redirected "back" to the "main" Cavan Senior Hurling Championship article. As, per nom, I do not see how there is enough independent and stand-alone coverage of each event. Such that each warrants a separate article. Certainly the 2020 event doesn't seem to... Guliolopez (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy with merge and redirect for this one Spiderone 09:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have a large number of articles at this level - "NNNN Irish-county Senior Hurling Championship" (about 700). see eg Category:Wexford Senior Hurling Championship. Not sure it makes much sense to consider this particular one in isolation. Nigej (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not all senior county championships are the same. The Wexford competition for example is a competition that involves 12 teams, attracts significant crowds and coverage. Including write-ups in multiple national news outlets (Irish Times) (Irish Independent). The Cavan equivalent involved a handful of teams, and didn't attract any coverage. At all. Not in local news, not in national news. Nowhere. Notwithstanding the lack of anything to support GNG, I'm intrigued to hear such a seasoned editor make such an obviously OSE argument.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some type of articles (and I'm thinking this is one) I think our readers expect completeness, one way or the other (ie all or none). Nigej (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A common selection criteria may apply to lists and list members. But the notability criteria is intended to be granular. And is applied as such. It does not apply the same notability to all members of a given group. ("This big company is notable, so all big companies are notable". "This variant of the Ford Falcon has an article, so all variants of the Ford Falcon should have articles". "This GAA competition is notable, so all similar GAA competitions are notable". Etc. That isn't really how it works....) Regardless, if "our readers expect there to be titles for every single year of every single competition, from 1884 though to infinity", then a redirect (as proposed) meets that requirement. Without the need for a near empty article that is supported by very very limited sources. Guliolopez (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cavan Senior Hurling Championship per above, and the other years' articles that have been spun out should probably follow suit. There's a distinct lack of coverage, and even setting that aside from a purely editorial view - this article just isn't long or detailed enough to need a separate article, and there's little scope for expansion if there isn't reliable-source coverage to base it on. ~ mazca ^talk 12:58, 19 October 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. ‑Scottywong | [confer] || 16:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Chem＆Pharm

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. 1292simon (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is very weak but the company is listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. It would be surprising if it were not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There appear to be some sources in zh:生達化學製藥. Like Rathfelder, I'd be quite surprised if a listed company like this weren't notable, but I can't evaluate the sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the reference I can read, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm happy to reconsider if someone can point to good references. References I can read fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The test is not whether the sources are in English. Rathfelder (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't assume I only read English...or that I can't use online translation tools. Perhaps I should have said "find" rather than read. Usually for a listed company, I look for analyst reports or coverage because those references meet the criteria. But I cannot find reports on this company but perhaps somebody else can? If so, I'll take a look and if they're good I'll change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some actual substantial independent coverage, in any language, can be found. By my best attempts to pick through the Chinese sources in zh:生達化學製藥, most of those sources are government websites confirming standards, a stock exchange listing, and several of them are just confirming the qualifications/awards won by the founder. None of them appear to be an actual piece about the company as a whole that would demonstrate notability under en-wiki's guidelines. I agree that this company kinda sounds like it should be notable, but I'm not seeing the sources to back it up. ~ mazca ^talk 12:52, 19 October 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 18:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 North Cork Junior A Hurling Championship

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. There is no direct and in-depth WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 11:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this local (below county level Cork Junior A Hurling Championship) competition has sufficient notability to have such articles for every individual championship Spiderone 12:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "North Cork Junior". Way below the standard required. Nigej (talk) 19:54, 10 October 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 English Settlement. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman (XTC song)

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

The article does not meet GNG or NSINGLE guidelines. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. I do not believe a redirect is appropriate, but if others feel it is I do not object. // Timothy :: talk 11:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 11:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to English Settlement, since it does not meet WP:NSONG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with onel5969; Redirect to English Settlement. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Settlement - It's from a notable album by a notable band, but the information in this article is fan trivia and the song does not qualify for its own article. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 00:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirect is very acceptable. This is a case of drilling down too far // Timothy :: talk 01:02, 12 October 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. Per WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of Australia association football goalscoring record

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

As per consensus established in this AfD. The concerns around WP:LISTN persist with all of these articles. There are issues with WP:NOTSTATS as well and we need to be more than simply a mirror of RSSSF and IFFHS.

@Fenix down: or @Malcolmxl5: please kindly speedy close as withdraw so that these can go in separate AfDs as each have (potentially) different merits and faults Spiderone 14:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- this is not similar to the prior AFD referred to (cannot say I am overly familiar with Saarland). I can only speak to Australia, but the topic of who is the nation’s leading goal scorer is the topic of significant media attention - and changes in the progression attract attention - as the references in that article show. Happy to link to various media on this if desirable but for mine this is notable in Australia at least and it wouldn’t surprise me if the same was true in many of the other lists nominated here, particularly England. Macosal (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't speak for all of these national teams, but the national team's all-time leading goalscorer is a notable topic in the UK (England and Scotland in this case). There was loads of coverage when Wayne Rooney broke the England record [25] and, thinking further back, when Gary Lineker missed a penalty that would have equalled the record [26]. There hasn't been much coverage of the Scotland record recently because we've been rubbish and nobody's got near the record! But when Kenny Dalglish equalled Denis Law's record (30 goals) that was widely reported, and has been covered retrospectively as well. In fact, Dalglish has described the goal that equalled that record the favourite of his whole career in both club and international play [27]. WP:NTEMP. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and last AFD, these kind of articles are not needed. Giant Snowman 14:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proceedural keep - on reflection, this kind of bundling is entirely inappropriate as each article needs discussing separately. I think, however, that these kind of articles should be merged with England national football team records etc. Giant Snowman 14:11, 10 October 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. Participants agree there is insufficient substantial coverage to meet notability guidelines. ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charanpreet Singh

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional BLP of an actor. The refs in the article are mainly interviews, fluff and social media. He has coverage in the Times of India but what is lacking is independent critical review of his acting work. There may be better sources in Hindi. Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Spiderone 12:23, 18 October 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 18:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kaziire

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

Promotional BLP of a successful businessman selling a health drink. WP:BEFORE shows interviews and other non-independent sources. He has received some news coverage that looks mostly like PR and had some official attention but overall does not seem to me to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - successful, but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman and promoter of what is not really a notable product. Even if his product were notable that would not make him default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SPAM. It is sourced entirely to local news and unreliable websites. In 2007, this would be excused, but in 2020, everybody knows we are not a social media marketing website. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 13 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive nutrient management plan

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

This is an uninformative and somewhat buzzwordy stub sourced only to an internal government report, and I have been unable to find anything better to base an article on. Reyk _YO! 08:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Buzzwords used in reports are not encyclopedic WP:WWIN. The topic Livestock Nutrition Management (or something like that) might merit an article, but an article with this title and content is not notable. // Timothy :: talk 16:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Responding to your feedback, I've added a paragraph from a source on the USDA.gov website. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 18:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is another article, Nutrient management, that already has a Nutrient management plan section, relying on similar NRCS source material. Merging any distinctive text from the instant CNMP article into the Nutrient management article would be more useful. Moreau1 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm changing my vote because Moreau1 drew my attention to Nutrient management. I was the author of the Comprehensive nutrient management plan article but now I don't think we need to keep it. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 12:35, 18 October 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 18:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Agrawal

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO WP:NMUSIC. Lack WP:SIGCOV. WP:TOOSOON case. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Weak Keep. found only a handful of references. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/music/250419/music-composer-and-lyricist-deepak-agrawal-makes-it-big-in-bollywood.html https://www.thestatesman.com/inspiration-hub/upcoming-bollywood-lyricist-music-composer-deepak-agrawal-gives-credit-father-musical-career-1502928128.html. Although it is possible that these are paid PR interviews. ChunnuBhai (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources are paid interviews and the author was (at least would later become) a paid editor. I am leaning delete, not finding sufficient coverage which can be demonstrated not to be PR. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Thjarkur's reasoning above Spiderone 10:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was previously deleted after a general consensus in AFD[28]. It was also CSDed and deleted as WP:G4 [29]. Ref 1, 3, and 10 appear to be paid pieces and the article still lacks independent sources.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 15:07, 13 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 02:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Bunn (exonerated prisoner)

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

Seems to be a case of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is the one event his conviction, his exoneration, or his well documented activism and community work? pburka (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If this were a 1E case, we'd expect a burst of coverage, then nothing. Instead, I see: New York Times (2013), Prison Legal News (2015), New York Times (2016), CNN (2018), New York Post (2019), Exoneration Initiative (2020). He easily passes WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly not BLP1E. Article can certainly be improved, but the subject is notable. Even if notability wasn't demonstrated (which it is), ATD tells us we should redirect instead, likely to a section of the detective's bio. 174.254.193.255 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - if and only if the reliable sources found by Pburka were added and the unreliable New York Post taken out, then and only then I would say this is a case of WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiont (company)

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

notability per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND not established, sources are merely reprinting whatever the company has announced in the press releases, there is no original research. press releases do not establish notability. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination.

This article is substantially the work of a single SPA, who edits on no other topics, and has frequently edit-warred questionable and simply bad sources in - and it shows. The present version is considerably toned down from the promotional nonsense the article used to be filled with, but is still functionally just a press release.

It's also blockchain promotional spam, even as the SPA has tried to argue that a company that sells blockchain software doesn't count as "content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed" per WP:GS/CRYPTO.

The present sources are all bad, as described in the nomination:

Marsh, Alastair (2019-01-23). "Nasdaq, Citi Join Novogratz in Funding Blockchain Firm Symbiont". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2019-06-28.

Funding details, not usable for notability; any claims about the company will have been company-supplied.

del Castillo, Michael; Schifrin, Matt (2020-02-19). "Blockchain 50". Forbes. Retrieved 2020-02-19.

Company-supplied, no WP:CORPDEPTH.

Shen, Lucinda (2019-01-23). "Blockchain Startup Symbiont Raises $20 Million to Take Aim at a Cause of the Financial Crisis". Fortune. Retrieved 2019-11-14.

Funding details, not usable for notability; any claims about the company will have been company-supplied.

Chavez-Dreyfuss, Gertrude (2015-06-10). "U.S. tech company raises $1.25 mln from ex-NYSE Euronext CEO, ex-Citadel trader". Reuters. Retrieved 2016-06-01.

Funding details, not usable for notability; any claims about the company will have been company-supplied.

Bullock, Nicole (2015-06-09). "Ex-NYSE head among trading veterans backing blockchain start-up". Financial Times. Retrieved 2016-06-01.

Press release churnalism.

Kauflin, Jeff (2019-05-30). "Vanguard Is Now Using Blockchain Technology To Help Manage $1.3 Trillion In Index Funds". Forbes. Retrieved 2019-06-28.

Press release churnalism.

Eha, Brian Patrick (2017-12-12). "Vanguard leapfrogs cautious banks, unveils blockchain network plan". American Banker. Retrieved 2017-12-14.

Press release churnalism.

Marsh, Alastair (2019-10-03). "Vanguard to Challenge Banks' Grip on $6 Trillion Currency Market". Bloomberg. Retrieved 2019-10-24.

Press release churnalism.

None of these are adequate sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. If the article were kept, all would warrant being struck - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources are publications of the highest quality and reputation. Because of vague and unsubstantiated criticism like the above, I initiated an ongoing RFC on the talk page to reach consensus on these matters, and the community seems to be generally of the opinion that the article is contentful, well-sourced and written in a fair and objective tone. I have taken it upon myself to work on this article, and am happy to put forth additional effort to address all actionable suggestions and complaints. (For the record, I have not stated that the article should not be subject to the guidelines of WP:GS/CRYPTO. Rather, I have said that the article should not be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency, because the article has nothing to do with cryptocurrency, as per the description of that project.) -- Moontreasure (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was specifically about the phrasing, not about your promotional sourcing. Its name is literally "RFC on Promotional Tone" - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:ORGIND, references should contain significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meets this criteria as the content is invariably sourced back to the company. There is no independent opinion with in-depth information on the company. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Gray

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was kept in 2009, with three out of the four keep !votes being the same person, TRATTOOO. We have become better since then at distinguishing genuine independent sources from churnalism and PR, and we're now a lot more discerning about biographies based on sources which are largely about the one notable thing a person did. All the genuinely independent sources here are int he context of her participation in Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. None of the sources about "Love Unleashes Life" was independent (e.g. the Amazon sales page, never a great idea). Overall I do not think this meets WP:GNG. Google finds 127 unique hits for "Stephanie Gray", mostly either unrelated or promotional, and only 16, including this article, for her married name. None of them is what I would consider sufficient to justify a standalone biography. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy has removed reliably sourced information from the page in an effort to facilitate a tenditious deletion discussion without first discussing this on the talk page. I have restored the reliably sourced information back to the page. Stephanie Gray Connors has recently been married, and she is notable for her prolife work in Canada and the United States. She was notable earlier, and has added additional work over the years with her Ted Talk and the conference in Mexico, as well as the book she has written. All of this information was removed by JzG|Guy. I would suggest that a better venue for this would be on the talk page, which is what the talk page was designed for. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a patently bad-faith reading of their edits and I think you owe them an apology. The edit summaries explicitly addressed the suitability of the sources: "all from primary sources" [30], "We need secondary sources, especially for obviously promotional claims. Amazon sales pages are exceptionally bad sources for book authorship." [31], "per Western Standard, wthis does not seem to be a reliable source" [32]. TompaDompa (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the claim that Stephanie Gray did not author that particular book? All the source is claiming is that yes, she did in fact author that particular book. There are additional sources that can be cited to show this and I am happy to provide those sources. Amazon was simply the quickest way to do so. As for the Western Standard, that's going to have to be taken up elsewhere. Western Standard is a source for western Canadian politics. There are source references to MacLeans, and to the National Post within the article as well, so these are just two of the smaller sources. As for the rest, reliability has to do with the claims that are being made. It's appropriate for the earlier portion of her life that this appear in the more local paper the BC Catholic. The issue with the removals is that they ALSO removed the link to the Ted talk, the talk in Mexico as well as the debates, etc. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30619397-love-unleashes-life" She is credited here as well. https://books.google.ca/books/about/Love_Unleashes_Life.html?id=x7AqjwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y, again, https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/title/love-unleashes-life/author/stephanie-gray/, etc. Amazon is simply used because that was the most convenient. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benkenobi18, for a book to be notable, it needs reviews by independent specialist reviewers in reliable sources. Not publishers' blurbs, user-generated content or sales pages. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benkenobi18, no, I removed poor sources. Check my user page, source quality is my major interest on Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Half of these sources are completely unreliable and rely on original research. The other half are feasible but probably aren’t quite good enough to put her into general notability. Trillfendi (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The first eight references are very low-quality and useless, apart from one, The National Post. There is nothing really in-depth that I can pinpoint, but she shows up in a lot places, which is surprising and worrying. Perhaps due to her spreading the word which is perhaps indicative that is more the work, that is getting reported on, rather than on any inherent notability. scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, yes, but always in connection with Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. There are no substantive biographical sources - and every time content gets reinserted it's always from primary, affiliated and/or unreliable sources - e.g. gave a talk here, source, video of talk. With most grifters there is independent coverage (cf. Jacob Wohl). Here, not so much. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A relist to give another week for sources to emerge but the consensus is currently to delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. WP:BASIC not established, and clearing out the history of this controversial BLP would seem reasonable so that, if someone did want to recreate in the future, they would have to clearly establish notability for the person without relying on the weak sourcing currently in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Stricker

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

Fails GNG and WP:NAUTHOR Graywalls (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep As much as I like poets and poetry, the references are atrocious and not effective. Looking in the usual garrets that poets hang out, I can't locate much either. I did find this jstor entry [33]. There is several entries in JStor that are published in the The Iowa Review. There is also several of her poem in Conjunctions Both of these are established American literary journals. I have changed it from Delete, to Weak Delete to Weak Keep. scope_creep^Talk 09:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found this passing mention: [34]. It states Stricker was awarded the National Poetry Series Award. Looking it up at National Poetry Series. She is on the list at 2002. scope_creep^Talk 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Iowa Review. In essence, it seems like readers/subscribers submit their poem to them and those selected gets published in it, not too unlike letter to the editor. However, being chosen as one of the few percent of Letters to the editor does not credit the submitter with a notability claim just on its own. It's a function of how many spots they have in mind to fill the upcoming issue vs how many items were submitted to them. Even if we were to attempt to go with the SNG, WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", then, there better be a good source attesting to THAT award award as being generally well known AND significant . What I have in mind as someone passing notability to exist on Wikipedia simply by having an award is perhaps someone who has one of these awards. How it's looking now is there needs to be a reliable secondary source that is intellectually independent of the subject actually discussing in depth about the subject, or their piece that appeared in the Iowa Magazine. So far, there appears to be none of that. 10:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC) Signed by User:Graywalls Sig added by scope_creep^Talk 09:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: That second part of your argument is ill-informed. Every group, whether it is doctors, poets, artists, philosophers, business people, all professional group, sports people and so on, all have their in-group awards and honours and the fact that they are not famous doesn't make them less significant, within that group. They are awarded by that group to that person as they see them having done exceedingly significant work that benefits them. Doctors in particular are know for awards that are massively prestigious within their organisation and can take decades of work to achieve, yet they are barely known outside their particular specialism. Wikipedia as a collection only represents only a fraction of these types of awards and honours. scope_creep^Talk 12:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't find the sources given convincing for notability based on independent sources. A minor award does not guarantee notability either (t · c) buidhe 23:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Boumerdès

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

I had added a PROD to this due to it's apparent lack of notability. Which was removed because "doing anything to university articles is controversial" or something. So, now I'm doing an AfD for it. What it comes down to for me is that this lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it, at least I was unable to find any when I looked for them, and universities are not inherently notable. With the current sourcing, one reference is primary and the other is extremely trivial. So, the article doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is a public university in Algeria. It passes GNG with news items such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and [35]. Mccapra (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NSCHOOL and more specifically WP:UNIGUIDE which begins In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia. Additionally sources in foreign language exist and Mccapra has found several to show that this article is verifiable and WP:N. Lightburst (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to look at the sources provided by Mccapra? They are extremely trivial and not in-depth. Also, the sentence you cited says "in general", as in usually. Which isn't "always." So universities aren't de-facto notable. In fact more then a few have been deleted at AfD because they weren't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I provided are news items about the university, not passing mentions. Mccapra (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mccapra's sources are good-quality articles about the university; they're enough to establish notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which ones are "good-quality articles about the university" exactly? Would you call the the third one that's a essentially a long winded diatribe by the president of the university on fermentation a "good quality" article that's about "the university"? Or how about the forth source that's an extremely short paragraph about how the president left? How is that "good-quality" exactly? Or maybe your talking about the six source that's about 3 fisherman getting kidnaped and has absolutely nothing to do with the university? It's almost like you didn't even bother to look at the sources before you voted. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "A new incubator for technologies at the University of Boumerdes" is particularly good; it's an article about progress that the university is making. I think that "The strike of Boumerdes University students continues" is also good; it's a news event that's specific to the university. I apologize if my comment made you angry. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Since you said "sources" I assumed you meant all of them. Anyway, I don't think you care if you made me angry or not. Nor is it likely that you even think your comment did make me angry. Mostly, it's just more of the usual goading that you seem incapable of keeping in check for some reason. That said, it does get a little time consuming and disruptive/unfair to the process if people post "bad" sources that have to be called out and if people vote keep (or even delete) based on them. That's all. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like for someone to incorporate those identified sources into the article. With universities as long as we have evidence that they are real institutions engaged in actual education and not just diploma mills we will keep them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think sources about the chemistry of alcohol and three fisherman getting kidnapped should go in the article if it's kept. It's not about the fermentation process or Palestinian fishermen. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the source that I added to the article before you even started the discussion, this from Times Higher Education, is neither primary nor extremely trivial as you claimed the sources to be in your nomination statement. Just stop telling such lies. And of course proper, real universities are suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. Any statement to the contrary is simply anti-intellectual dumbing-down that would lead Wikipedia to become a popular culture compendium rather than an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. And supposedly I'm the one with the battle ground mentality and can't handle people disagreeing with me. Yet, your the one that's calling me a lier and saying that disagreeing with you would be "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" of Wikipedia. What a nut job, completely inconsistent way to act. Your clearly a special kind of snow flake. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I completely stand my comment that your source is trivial. Just taking a random quote out of it proves as much "the university maintains a range of high-quality academic facilities. These include an intensive language centre, library, audio-visual centre, and a dedicated facility for distance learning and off-site study." What's not trivial about the school having academic facilities and a library? Literally every school does. Especially "academic facilities." It's literally what a school is. That kind of thing is extremely WP:MILL. The article might as well be about how they have walls, a floor, and air in the rooms. Trying to have an article about a schools walls would be is more "anti-intellectual dumbing-down" Wikipedia then anything I've done. Especially if there's no actual details. Cool they have a library, but what about it? Oh there's no other details about it? Exactly. It's just walls. That's it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Times Higher Education World University Rankings -- Best universities in the Arab World, and also ABOUT M'HAMED BOUGARA UNIVERSITY OF BOUMERDÈS by Times Higher Education, and also keep per WP:WORLDVIEW. Right cite (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WORLDVIEW is an essay and essays aren't valid to cite in AfDs. As they aren't policy or a guideline. Also, it doesn't matter if it's supposedly one of the best universities in the Arab World, because rankings don't work for notability and neither do "articles" related to them. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Plenty of sources. Plus we invariably keep degree-awarding institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:37, 16 October 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 ZEE5. czar 18:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OZEE

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

Non-notable, unsuccessful OTT platform for the delayed viewing of shows from the Zee Network. No originals or in-depth coverage in RS to establish notability. Tagged for sources since Jan 2018. Redirects to Zee5 have been reverted thrice with unsupported claims of notability. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TheRedDomitor (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with ZEE5 since it is its predecessor and is otherwise not notable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ZEE5 as above. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Marc Forster Thomas & Friends film

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

Too soon. Fails WP:NFILM. One source briefly mentions an earlier project 2 decades ago. The other announces that this project is planned. No production anywhere near the "reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced" required by WP:NFF SummerPhD^v2.0 04:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there are any way to improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EquestriaGirlsFan2003 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find reliable sources which say the film is MUCH further along in production than it seems to be. That's why I'm saying it's "Too soon". If and/or when the movie is well into being made, it will be notable, but so many films fall through (as with the one 20 years ago) that we simply don't create articles for them. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon, per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we redirect the Untitled Marc Forster Thomas & Friends film page to the main Thomas & Friends article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EquestriaGirlsFan2003 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. Trivialist (talk) 01:47, 12 October 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 18:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baily Bridge

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

Fails GNG. Not verifiable through any reliable or any official source. No images, no geo location. Looking at the confluence 34°35′39″N 76°07′13″E / 34.59417°N 76.12028°E / 34.59417; 76.12028 of the subject rivers the highest altitude of the surrounding mountains is way below than 4000m. MehrajMir (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MehrajMir (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article claims as being "the highest bridge at 5602m, between Dras and Suru rivers".Looking at the terrain the top highest point is Junkor peak (5320m) within the radius of 30km of the joining of the two rivers. Also the rivers mentioned flow in the semi-opposite direction. Suru flows from south to north and Drass flows from west to east before joining the Suru. From the above it seems the ariticle is a big lie. MehrajMir (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Besides all the other issues, it is not the "Baily Bridge": it is a Bailey bridge, but the picture that invariably is associated with the claims is of a suspension bridge. Nearly every place a found makes almost exactly the same nebulous claims about location, and the same precise claim about its altitude. All indications are that its a bit of fakelore. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 15 October 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 18:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many Horses

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I gave up looking for suources as the name is too generic, but a quick search threw up none, and its (in reality) unsourced right now. With just one book not cited in any way, so its impossible to verify. Even then its one source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Literally no WP:RS cited. Could be a hoax for all we know. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a demonstration of existence, and though I'm inclined to believe he was real, all he apparently did was speak to a crowd. Since when did that make someone notable (this is where sources need to be provided)? -Indy beetle (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His famous quote is found in Google book results, as well as native American websites. Can't find anything else about him. Dream Focus 13:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing significant biographical details in secondary sources Spudlace (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source

Grinnell, George Bird (1895). The Story of the Indian. D. Appleton. pp. 236–245. Not sure that it is one and the same person. Timing seems right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That book says that "the chief Many Horses was killed in the great battle of the Cypress Hills in the autumn of 1867," on pg 237. The person described in this article organized a ghost dance in the spring of 1890. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as it pains me because he sounds like an interesting person, there were no real sources of notability provided. I hope someone can find good sourcing and will rewrite this article in the future. It does not meet WP:GNG in its current form. Tsistunagiska (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book cited was published (or at least republished) through Ohio University Press. I have put it on hold at my local library. I hope to have it by the end of the week or early next week. I ask that the closing admin please extend the AfD until such time as I can view the source and see if there are hints for where else I may find information on this individual. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus so far is pretty clearly to delete, but User:DiamondRemley39 has requested a little bit of additional time to get a book to find additional sources. As such, I'm relisting this to give them an additional week to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a quick look at the source quoted - there is a copy of it on google books, though its only in preview mode. he seems to be mentioned only briefly, and nothing to substantiate him as a notable figure. This article needs more RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian , I have that book and yes, the section on him is short. I am checking out the book's source today and will post an update. There is a WP:HEY factor, though it may not be enough. Stay tuned, all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the research: Thanks for the patience in relisting. Now we know our subject enough to, I think, make an informed decision.

We know that quote was legitimate, said by Many Horses AKA Rising Wolf, and that it was published first in an article by Hamlin Garland. The quote is quite a few places on the internet; it seems to have been picked up from the book that listed it as a source but its original source not referenced. We can all see how this is problematic, can't we?

I don't see that there is enough here (in terms of notability, information, etc.) for the subject to have an article. However, in the interest of WP:PRESERVE and Wikipedia stepping up and making this quote and individual more verifiable, I suggest the information/sourcing metadata be incorporated into the article on the Ghost Dance and to Wikiquote. Yet I have never used Wikiquote; perhaps another user such as Toughpigs can say whether this is doable and a good move. Thanks, all! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Difficult to research. Others with similar names. Example Emil Her Many Horses is likely notable. Yet another different person, simply Her Many Horses, and also this source, "Emil Her Many Horses (Oglala Lakota) is a member of the Oglala Lakota tribe and an accomplished beadwork artist, winner of the 2001 Best of Show category for his tribute to the Lakota Sioux Vietnam Veterans at the Northern Plains Tribal ". from source, Conversations with Remarkable Native Americans - Page 23. Joelle Rostkowski · 2012. So, could be a few different Wikipedia articles about different people, all more recent, all notable, with names ending in "Many Horses"... Right cite (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zing^(Talk!) 03:18, 10 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Everhart

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to credits listings and non-independent coverage _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was considering nominating this myself; I tried looking for sources and couldn't find anything to establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:COMPOSER. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non notable composer who fails to satisfy WP:COMPOSER. Celestina007 (talk) 09:46, 10 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Karnal

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Let's review the sources:

[36] database entry,
[37] all the information is about Deerfield, not Karnal
[38] mere mention
[39] mere mention
[40] mere mention
[41] mere mention
[42] Softball Q&A with an alma mater PR outlet, not reliable or particularly independent
[43] Company website
[44] not independent
[45] quotes the subject once
[46] 20 under 40 list by an industry publication _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sources do not show notability and/or are not secondary sources. A search of Google, JSTOR and ProQuest did not produce additional sources, and NYT's articles discussed Karnal in passing (in regards to his wedding). Z1720 (talk) 03:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Analysis of sources is spot on, although I'm waiting for a bit before deciding incase sources show up.Hmanburg (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Subject of article is a business person who doesn’t possess sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of them to warrant a standalone article. Celestina007 (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While accomplished, does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability for a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 12 October 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpen (food)

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

Doesn't seem very notable to me -- didn't find any GHITS for the cereal being discussed outside of manufacturer pages and product listings, and the one source (for the first sentence) is a link to the manufacturer's site. I would propose a merge with an article about Weetabix, but virtually none of the stuff in the article is sourced (and some of it is quite absurd). jp×g 02:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been a major brand for over 50 years and so, to me, is up there with Rice Krispies, Sugar Puffs and other famous breakfast cereals. There's obvious alternatives to deletion and so this is a cleanup issue, not a matter of deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: "Famous breakfast cereal" does not equal notability. Please provide sources or people are going to be very unlikely to take this !vote seriously. Hog Farm _Bacon 14:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge & redirect to Weetabix_Limited#Brands: I added a couple of sources about the origins of this product line and its market share, and removed some uncited strange stuff. There are other Marketing book texts which could be cited, and the one I added describes this as "the most successful non-American cereal product". That could point towards Keep; however the discussions of the brand tends to be in the context of a successful re-orientation by the Weetabix company, so I wonder if it may be better situated at the subheading in the company article? AllyD (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I haven't edited on Wikipedia in several years, I wrote this article originally more than 15 years ago as part of trying to make Wikipedia a comprehensive encyclopedia about the world. I created this article along with Cheerios and other major cereal brands; this cereal is not the same as Weetabix. It is a common muesli cereal product consumed in the Anglophone world. This article needs cleanup, not deletion. (Thanks for bringing me out of Wiki-retirement, by the way.) poroubalous (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Weetabix Limited#Alpen. Here's a paragraph devoted to an Alpen advertisement, in oddly enough, a book about the sexualization of culture. That, combined with the other stuff already in the article, is pretty weak. A good deal of the coverage I can turn up is product listings, recipes (including one from the 1970s involving rum!), and one old newspaper announcement that Alpen was part of a school supply list. Almost everything I can find is in relation to the manufacturer of this cereal, Weetabix. Since the Weetabix article includes a blank section for Alpen in its list of manufactured products, and the coverage that's been found is almost exclusively in connection with Weetabix, it makes the most sense to merge there. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Irish Times 1, Good Housekeeping rates it 2, The Guardian 3 and quite a few other ... 4, 5 Lightburst (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exceptionally notable brand in the UK. Clearly encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 15 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromy Green

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The only example of significant coverage in a reliable source is [47], with some additional trivial coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reached same conclusions as nom. Has a very local importance, so does not meet WP:GNG. The fact that he landed one of Tony Hawk's tricks can be placed in Tony Hawk's article. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 16:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG requires multiple sources giving significant coverage, such is clearly lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 12 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn Downtown Montreal

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

The article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. Article makes no claim of notability. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth, only promos, booking sites, etc. // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an utterly WP:ROTM building that fails WP:NBUILD. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. There is nothing notable about this building or this branch of Holiday Inn. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic building housing a generic hotel. Nate • (chatter) 03:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy as an article containing nothing indicating its significance. BD2412 T 04:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NBUILD. Jmbranum (talk) 23:05, 10 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Le Soleil

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

The article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. The article makes no claim of notability. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth, only travel sites, promos, booking sites, etc. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — What TimothyBlue already stated. It Fails to meet WP:NBUILD. Celestina007 (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An utterly unremarkable hotel. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generic building housing a generic hotel. Nate • (chatter) 03:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Shalet

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

I don't think this person meets our notability guidelines. I have tried to performa a google search but can't find any clear evidence of notability. I am not completely familiar with guidelines but propose this article for deletion for this reason - looking forward to hearing what other editors think. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is badly written in a way that makes him look non-notable, but Google Scholar is showing an h-index in the 90s, an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. FRCP could well be enough for #C3 as well. The Jewish Telegraph calls him "Europe's most prominent hormone specialist", and there's an in-depth interview with him in The Endocrinologist which looks like it could be used to expand the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Utterly stunning citation record on GS. How could the nominator have ignored this? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
- Nice to meet you Xxanthippe. As you can see above I tried quite hard to put up a good faith nomination and make it clear I'm not an AfD regular. I performed a google search but not a google scholar search as I figured the papers on google scholar would not be independent of the subject. Anyhow, now I'm somewhat wiser about the GNG. Happy to withdraw this nomination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, Tom (LT). AfD can be a strange place, and the regulars (like me) tend to throw around a lot of jargon, so it can take a little while to get the hang of what's going on. If you'd like to understand how deletion debates for scientists, professors, and people like that usually work, I'd recommend reading the "academics and educators" notability guideline and skimming the archive of them. In case you weren't familiar with Google Scholar, it's an imperfect-but-useful tool for finding academic papers and seeing who has cited them. People can create profiles on Google Scholar that list their publications; for example, here is the profile for David Eppstein, who commented above. Note that it lists the number of citations that each of his papers have received (2160, 918, 515, etc.). His papers are obviously not independent sources about him, since he wrote or co-wrote them, but the citation counts are evidence that his work has been influential. That's one way to be notable by "WP:PROF#C1", as we say. Unfortunately, it looks like Prof. Shalet hasn't made himself a Google Scholar profile, but the search still finds papers by him, and we can evaluate his record. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Large number of highly cited papers, including plenty with the subject as first/last author, is an unambiguous pass of WP:NPROF C1. There's an indepth interview with him in the Endocrinologist [48] that could be used to expand the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easy NSCHOLAR C1 pass with the citation count.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:06, 12 October 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Beauséjour

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

The article does not meet GNG or NBUILD. No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth, only promos, booking sites, etc. // Timothy :: talk 01:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 01:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another unremarkable hotel. Having the most rooms of any hotel in New Brunswick is not a claim to notability, IMO. What, TimothyBlue, do you have some sort of vendetta against Canadian hotels??? :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings, No, but who told you? I have only one vendetta, and that is against all shopping mall articles, especially shopping mall stubs. Any information to the contrary is fake news created by the Wikipedia deep state to discredit me. // Timothy :: talk 02:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. In theory it's not impossible that this building has some unique history or architecture which could work to make it notable, but 'most rooms in the province' doesn't cut it, even if it were sourced. BD2412 T 04:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm leaning in BD2412's direction. I could find no sources beyond potted mentions in travel guides like Frommer's. There are brief mentions in some railway books, but just a sentence to the effect that CN was still building railway hotels in the early 1970s. That fact does intrigue me, because I wouldn't have expected it, but again I couldn't find anything significant about the hotel itself. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Google Street View

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Timeline of Google Street View

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

Seeking consensus here to merge only 'Coverage by country or territory' on Google Street View, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe merging addresses the interests of those who voted "keep" in the AfD (1st nomination). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 00:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think anything could be merged over there. It'd just be deleting by replacing the article with a redirect. The last AFD had consensus to keep as "this is a timeline, not a directory". Dream Focus 01:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD was closed by a non-admin, with a quite nonneutral closing message. I wouldn't say such consensus actually existed there. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 01:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14 wanted it kept, three wanted it deleted, one wanted it merged. Multiple people did mention it was a valid timeline article, not a directory. Dream Focus 01:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third AFD, the first was when the article was titled Timeline of Google Street View, which ended with an overwhelming keep. Dream Focus 01:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out, I've added that link above. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. Wouldn’t be feasible to merge this over. Zing^(Talk!) 02:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say it is better to remove the list in the main article and just write about the coverage being available accross all continents. Eventually citing some iconic Street View coverage but keep it simple. People will probably want to know more about the service itself first then check where it is available only if they're actually interested by clicking on the link directing to this article. KillerMapper (talk) 08:38, 10 October 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 speedy per WP:G14

Liberty, Kentucky (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page per WP:TWODABS, as there's a clear primary topic here. This can be handled better with hatnotes. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete precisely per nom. The disambiguation function can be performed in a hatnote. BD2412 T 04:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've tweaked the hatnote on the Primary Topic article. The dab page was previously useful as there was also a Liberty, Fulton County, Kentucky, but this has been deleted. PamD 11:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no longer needed per PamD. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:30, 13 October 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.

[1] Richtel, Matt (1998-05-28). "You Can't Always Judge a Domain by Its Name". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-09-23.

[1]