Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 16	November 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gobin Debbarma

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

Non notable singer with no indication of satisfying either WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. Sources are announcements of his music release with no wide coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was made this article, this article meets WP:Guideline, the singer also has online source.Bdm166 (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article concern his participation in a single called "Break the Chain", causing him to fall into WP:1EVENT. Since the single is not notable, I support a delete outcome. Google, JSTOR and NYT searches did not yield additional results, nor did searches of Indian websites on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Z1720 (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can move this article to draft instead of delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdm166 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fail WP:MUSICBIO evidence of Notability not found Samat lib (talk) 22:56, 27 November 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 prejudice against recreation if additional grounds for notability appear. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church (Buffalo, New York)

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

Run of the mill congregation. Many churches are notable because they're listed on the NRHP. This one is not and, apart from a single entry in a book detailing every church in Buffalo, there is no other WP:SIGCOV. schetm (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep Older building, but I see nothing in the article for notability. Google doesn't turn up much. On the fence...Oaktree b (talk)
Delete per nom, WP:MILL, and my standards for historic churches. The current building dates from 1930, 90 years ago. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 19 November 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 17:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Fresno

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

Another place where nothing is very, not to say, notably tall. A couple of entries are on the NRHP, and a couple more have articles, though I have to question the notability on at least one of those, but half the list is without articles, so navigationally it's not that useful, especially since height is not what makes any of these notable. Mangoe (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: when the tallest building on the last is shorter than some parking garages, it's probably not worth having. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:LISTN. The city is not notable for tall buildings. The single reference is to a database listing site, WP:BEFORE showed nothing that would meet WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG or LISTN // Timothy :: talk 09:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless someone can show WP:SIGCOV of these buildings being discussed as a group then I do not believe that a stand-alone article is warranted Spiderone 21:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Lorstaking 04:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:SNOW, LIST, and my own low standards. None of the buildings are over 22 floors high, and this list is randomly formatted. An article or list of historic buildings of Fresno or such would be acceptable. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or move to List of buildings in Fresno (which I'll gladly do), which can be filled out with registered historic places as well as just tall buildings. I don't see any need to destroy this much content when a simple list of buildings in the city would pass muster, and minimal effort would be required to turn this into one. jp×g 12:19, 23 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostCircus Apparel

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

Insufficient coverage for WP:NCORP. MB 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MB 22:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this company passes WP:NCOMPANY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 20 November 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. Sandstein 17:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-related animal conspiracy theories

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

This article is either WP:POVFORK or WP:SYNTH. Someone has taken a bunch of divergent news articles about Israel, Mossad, and animals and made it into an article. While the statements in the article are sourced, the composition is original. I cannot find a single book or academic source discussing the topic "Israel-related animal conspiracy theories." ImTheIP (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it may very well be propaganda. E.g it is not uncommon for Israel-friendly media to mistranslate Arabic sources, inadvertently or intentionally, to present a picture of Arabs as crazy conspiracy theorists. For example, here is an al-Quds article about the problems boars cause to West Bank farmers. You can read it using Google translate. But on the Wikipedia page, the topic is presented as nothing more than an Arab conspiracy theory. ImTheIP (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is very oddly specific and definitely looks like WP:POVFORK Keep in light of the articles listed below Hun ter 23:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hunter1471, which article or former article do you consider to be forked by Israel-related animal conspiracy theories? gidonb (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the third time this article has gone to AFD. Last time I mentioned https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2011/01/05/secret_agent_plot_saudi_arabia_claims_bird_working_as_israel_spy.html as an article covering multiple conspiracy theories of this type. It was mentiond along with https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/shark-attack-in-egypt-must-be-the-work-of-israeli-agents http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/israels_spying_vulture--and_ki.html by the closing administrator as evidence this was a notable topic. Dream Focus 00:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Star (is that a reliable news site?) article is exactly the kind of reporting that shouldn't be used to build contentious articles. Here's a quote from the article The Palestinian news wire WAFA reported a few years ago during the Intifada that Israelis were releasing giant rats in East Jerusalem. These killer rodents, “large as dogs,” were supposed to scare the locals out of their homes to leave this equally holy and contested city to the Jews (who apparently are not afraid of giant rats). There is no evidence of any Wafa article about "killer rodents" nor of the "large as dogs" quote. Same thing with the blog post in WaPo This just in: Saudi Arabia has arrested a bird on charges of spying for Israel. When and where was the bird arrested and by whom? Was the bird released or was it prosecuted? He links to Haaretz so "obviously" it must be true? It's all just a big whispering game where so called "journalists" writes some click-baity garbage based on what they read in some other click-baity garbage. ImTheIP (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Star is a reliable news source. Jerusalem Post mentions the same story. https://www.jpost.com/Israel/Palestinians-Israel-uses-rats-against-Jlem-Arabs There are giant rats in that part of the world https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tehran-rats-iran-giant-mutant-rodents-photo_n_2807145 mentions Iran's giant rats that "reportedly weigh as much as 11 pounds." https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/03/04/173426457/reports-snipers-deployed-to-kill-tehrans-cat-sized-rats Cat sized rats are listed there. Some rats are listed as being the size of small dogs, but not related to this particular region. Not sure if any of these giant rats got into Israel and they blamed it on the Jews. The various bird spy articles get coverage in various reliable sources. https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-mediates-return-of-israeli-spy-bird-from-lebanon/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35446528 Dream Focus 04:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article is written by Khaled Abu Toameh who is a fellow at the far-right think tank the Gatestone Institute whose chairman Amir Taheri is a well known spreader of bullshit. The distance between Tehran and Jerusalem is 2 000 km so giant rats in Tehran has very little to do with rats in Jerusalem. In Toronto Star's article, "large as dogs" was in quotation marks so if that phrase isn't in Wafa's supposed article, the journalist who wrote it is a liar. And even if (big if) Abu Toameh's reporting is accurate, the claim is that settlers "flood the Old City of Jerusalem with rats." That's is an unsubstantiated claim but not a conspiracy theory. Wikipedia articles should not be based on trite clickbait no one can verify the correctness of. ImTheIP (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We go based on what reliable sources say, not the personal opinions of editors. https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/126967 mentions this also, Wikinews has an article on it with two references https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Palestinian_official_newspapers:_Israel_uses_super_rats_against_Jerusalem_Arabs and many other places. Dream Focus 11:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) is Israel's version of the Daily Mail. It's absolute trash. Sorry, the argument "lots of people have repeated the claim so it must be true" is not great. ImTheIP (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Admittedly the phrase "oddly specific" was very much on the tip of my tongue when I saw this. But the publications given by DreamFocus above show that there is indeed a theme here that has been recognized and discussed as a whole, which makes it a valid article topic (this is also dealt with in the last section of the article.) No comment on possible anti-Arab/Israel/bee-eater slant in the individual items... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, despite the "WTF?" article title this is actually quite a thing in RS, and so merits coverage. Alexbrn (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced, albeit weird, article. I'm inclined to keep it here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't think that the title is accurate, the subject is notable and within scope. Shankargb (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered by reliable sources over an extended period of time.--11Fox11 (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree_b: "Well-sourced, albeit weird, article." See WP:SIGCOV and WP:ODD. 20:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meet WP:GNG Some of the sources for example [1],[2],[3],[4] There is probably much more, those sources don't talk about individual cases but about the whole phenomena --Shrike (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete think about it: what if anyone started USA-related animal conspiracy theories, or British-related animal conspiracy theories, would such an article have any chance of surviving? I think not, -and not that you would be in any lack of material. BTW, this "article" was started by a now long-banned editor, who "specialised" in making Arabs/Palestinians look bad. Huldra (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Imagine a moment, that someone started the USA-related animal conspiracy theories, where each and every instance mentioned in the article involved ...Afro-Americans, would you have accepted such an article? I think most of you would see it for what it was: cherry-picking instances in order to suit once prejudice.

Well, this is exactly that, 100% of the "instances" mentioned are about Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims. If you don't accept Afro-Americans "hate-articles" (or Chinese, Mexican-American, or Gay "hate-articles"), why would you accept Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims "hate-articles"? Huldra (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG, article has plenty of sources that cover these "conspiracies" individually, some of which could have individual wikiarticles if they weren't here, also a couple of editors above have provided sources that discuss a number of them. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that appeals to WP:LISTN requires the article to be "list-like". That is, either have a title on the form "List of ..." or otherwise have the appearance of a "list". This article doesn't so WP:LISTN doesn't apply. ImTheIP (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rubbish article.BlueD954 (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the accusation that Khaled Abu Toameh is unfit to be used as a source because the Gatestone Institute publishes articles he writes is cherry picking and, frankly, seems politically biased. He is an award-winning (Muslim Arab) journalist who writes for The Jerusalem Post and formerly worked for NBC News. Second, Conspiracy theories in the Arab world, specifically animal conspiracies -- like the widely repeated belief that Jews are descended from apes and pigs -- (mentioned in the article Antisemitism in Islam) have a pedigree and have significantly impacted pan-Muslim public opinion of Jews and Israel (see, for example, Mohsin Khan's English translation of the Holy Quran, Chapter 5, Sūrat l-Māidah). Therefore, the subject is scholastically relevant. Zozoulia Zozoulia (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Toameh is a "senior distinguished fellow" at the Gatestone Institute. Sometimes guilt by association is unfair, but not when a person associates with lunatics infamous for inventing propaganda out of thin air. ImTheIP (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes guilt by association is unfair, but not when a person associates with lunatics infamous for inventing propaganda out of thin air." That's your opinion. That claim would be the equivalent of saying that since yours is also the opinion of the Council for American-Islamic Relations, which was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history, then you are also an unindicted co-conspirator in financing terrorism. That's an Ad hominem, which is a rhetorical reaction inconsistent with the neutrality that defines our editing discussions. Deleting an article on the basis of an ad hominem attack is the cyber equivalent of book burning. But the argument is also a red herring, since Khaled Abu Toameh authored only two of the 53 articles cited in the footnotes. That does not indict the relevance and accuracy of an entire article. Please post instead whatever facts he cited in those two articles that you dispute Zozoulia (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tova Levy-Furman

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

Useful links:

WP:DIPLOMAT - since articles about diplomats are hard to classify under guidelines, this essay talks about what a diplomat's article may have to include to be notable. Note that this is NOT a guideline, just a suggestion but I've used the points raised that suggest notability below to show how she doesn't meet the criteria.

Google search for Tova Levy-Furman's name

As per WP:GNG, no significant coverage at all for Levy-Furman, except for citation 2. All other references on Google are of Levy-Furman being included in lists of diplomats, which do not represent significant coverage. Additionally, there are not even a significant number of lists she is included in, to further enhance the case for non-notability. As per WP:ANYBIO, not received an award or part of an important contribution.

As per WP:DIPLOMAT, not a head of mission (looking at citation 1, page 19). Also did not receive coverage for crafting a treaty or being involved in a notable diplomatic event.

She is also a now-retired diplomat according to citation 2, and involvement with the activist organisations doesn't confer notability.

Hun ter 22:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambassadors are not default notable and the coverage is not enough to justify an article. I suspect we have many articles on ambassadors that are not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I note that I disagreed at the time with the change in consensus, but since have gone along. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per rationale already stated above - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 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. Deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#G7 wbm1058 (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Hussain Azar

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

I moved a wrong page to this page, need to get this deleted! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted some time ago. Geschichte (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Javed Hussain Azar

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

This was created not knowing that another page exists for the same person, I would like to delete this and move the other page to this space after this page is deleted. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G7 and marked up as such. AfD unneeded in this situation. 174.254.192.175 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 17 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coalville Evangelical Church

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

Fails WP:NCHURCH; neither the building nor the organisation appear to be notable. I have done quite a long search and could not even find the most basic info (e.g. when it was founded). The building doesn't appear to be a listed building nor does it have historical significance. Spiderone 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing indicating notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not like having to vote thus, but it looks like another NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:45, 19 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Collins

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

Notability concerns. Prod with rationale "Fails WP:VICTIM, WP:GNG and WP:1E" removed. Coverage is about Mary Teresa Collins advocating on behalf of victims (which includes her mother Angela), not about Angela herself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am the contributor who added the PROD. And the concerns which prompted the PROD still remain. Namely that WP:1E and WP:GNG are not met. All coverage relates to the family's subsequent campaign (to have the subject's death investigated and remains returned to them). WP:VICTIM applies. Guliolopez (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no meeting of inclusion criteria. Considering some of the sources on the article on her granddaughter come from wordpress I have my doubts if she meets inclusion criteria either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 18 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Martin Eckhart

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

Does not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:AUTHOR. The references are not WP:RS, they look like blogs or IMDB (See Wikipedia:IMDB/BLP). Newspapers.com finds no reviews of the author's works. Searching Google for "The Sweet-Maker of Connemara", "NYC3: GUN" and "Tales of Wychwood", indicates that the books are self published. User:TyronePower17 has made a number of edits on this page and indicates that they are a screenwriter and their first name is Daniel, so there may be a Wikipedia:SELFPROMOTE here. Cxbrx (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doing a quick skim search for "Daniel Martin Eckhart" shows no reliable sources (infact the first website to come up is the relevant Wikipedia article). The article itself also seems to read more as a list of credits to the subject than the subject themselves. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My bad. I was looking at and edited User:TyronePower17 and missed User talk:TyronePower17. On the talk page, there was a Speedy deletion nomination of Daniel Martin Eckhart in 2015, though I'm not sure about the outcome. Also, User:Danielmartineckhart redirects to User:TyronePower17. The COI has been pointed out before and the user did not declare the COI and continued to edit pages where they have a COI. Cxbrx (talk) 02:13, 18 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Van Empel Goldman Foundation

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Algemeen nut beogende instelling per WP:ORG failure. gidonb (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It wouldn't make sense to redirect the page to Algemeen nut beogende instelling, as that is just the legal type of organization the foundation is. We wouldn't redirect some US company that is non-notable to C corporation either. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sema Soygeniş

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

Lack of notability. [evolutionoftheuniverse] ^@enwiki 18:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:GNG. I found no reliable sources in my research. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable architect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references cannot be verified. Formatting is incorrect. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing a case for notability... happy to be proved wrong though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:57, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Gamsızoğlu

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

Lack of notability. [evolutionoftheuniverse] ^@enwiki 17:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a bit more difficult as there are a couple of reliable sources I found: [5] [6]. I will go with weak delete here, since there are only 2 which is not enough. @Evolutionoftheuniverse: In case the result of this AfD is in favour of deleting, should we nominate it in the Turkish wikipedia as well? ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 16:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Styyx: Each project's understanding of notability is different but despite that a deletion will raise a concern on notability in trwiki.--[evolutionoftheuniverse] ^@enwiki 17:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians. The fact that the Turkish wikipedia accepts total druk of articles does not mean we have to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet musician notability guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ege Maltepe

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

Lack of notability. [evolutionoftheuniverse] ^@enwiki 17:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only thing I found was a passing mention here. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 09:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet actor notability guidelines. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:04, 21 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Black Foxes

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

Listing after PROD was contested.

This is a non-professional sports club of questionable notability. The article has existed for 5 years with minimal improvements and a search for independent sources comes up mostly empty. The only independent source provided is from everythingrubyleague, a site that solicits article, which makes me doubt it meets WP:RS. The absence of other independent sourcing tells me the subject fails WP:GNG. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think this is notable. No reliable sourcing that I can find, but perhaps I'm missing something. Kinda puzzled by the contested PROD, but an explanation isn't required for contesting, so whatever. Waggie (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have left a reason for contesting. Reading WP:PROD to the letter, the bad faith removal by the blocked user technically nullified reinstating the prod plus any future prod. But looking at the page myself, I was not convinced it should be deleted without a discussion among experienced users. Even though I couldn't find any direct references with a 5 minute search, if the league is notable, it seems the teams should be. Again, I felt more eyes should judge it rather than a prod. After looking at the article, I actually might lean delete (but I am, for the record, neutral),but was sure hoping it could be sourced up real good by someone in the know. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thank you for replying, it's appreciated. I can see your rationale and think it's reasonable. Waggie (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only non-independent coverage I could find at all is the blurb here, which isn't significant. A redirect to the league may be a reasonable compromise. SportingFlyer T·C 16:10, 23 November 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. Withdrawn, looks like I was wrong. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm _Bacon 18:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugnu–Kuparuk Airport

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

At least from the way I think about this, I'm seeing a WP:GNG failure. It's a private use airport maintained by an oil corporation in isolated northern Alaska, presumably to service oil operations. Sources are a FAA form and the Great Circle Mapper, which mostly calculates distances between airports. My WP:BEFORE turned up weather station results from a nearby monitoring post, some routine airport database entries, and more government forms. I'm not seeing notability for a corporate-use airfield that doesn't get in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree - airports tend to be along the lines of railway stations where they are usually notable just for existing, and there's even some mention the airspace around the airport is controlled, which makes this a lot more substantial than your usual Bob-had-a-landing-strip-behind-his-farm and-now-it's-in-an-airport-database deletes. Also noted in a defence plan for the US, and the runway was recently paved with asphalt. Not the best article on the site, but still worth keeping. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of the Five Pillars is that Wikipedia is, in part, a gazzeteer, and airports are considered, generally, to be within that scope and thus covered. There is a line when it comes to private airports, but one with a six thousand foot paved runway would seem to fall above that line. It does need further research and referencing but that should be done in the scope of normal editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:00, 17 November 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, Dios Mio!

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. The article just mentions that it peaked at 10 in a component chart and that doesn't mean it is notable. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the text about a 2021 remix is an hoax, don't take it seriously. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, propose redirection of article to Karol G discography as the page is a song, but it’s not notable, so the page should be redirected instead because of potential future article creation. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 18:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karol G discography as this is a viable search term so a redirect would seem preferable over an outright deletion. There does not appear to be enough coverage for a stand-alone article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:R#KEEP. This article was created by a now-blocked, problematic user who added lots of unsourced content. AshMusique (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ignoring the disruptive editing by a user who has now been blocked, the article does satisfy WP:NSONGS. In addition to doing well on the Latin charts in the US, it also reached 25 on the global charts by Billboard so it does satisfy nobility plus it also received a certification by the RIAA. By billboards admission, the song reach number one on the Latin AirPlay the first by female solo artist in 2020 so that also makes it notable. I added the charts and the certification to the article. Erick (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While chart performance is important, whether or not the song has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources is a stronger sign of notability. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the song has been covered in Rolling Stone, Billboard. if I had internet access on my desktop I would be adding more content, but I lost internet access because I can't afford it right now. Editing on mobile is very cumbersome. Erick (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. I am not a fan of editing on mobile either. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Erick. The song has charted in multiple charts, certified RIAA double platinum (!) and is covered in some details in multiple sources. Improve it, don't delete it. --Muhandes (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Erick. Article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep, The article needs some improving here and there but meets NSONGS -Xclusivzik (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a lot of other articles with way more issues than this one, the song has charted, it has a music video, it even went double platinum, I can't see any reason to delete it or redirect it. Leave latin music and artists have their space on Wikipedia as well. FanofPopMusic (talk) 12:57, 23 November 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 17:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leather & Grace

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

Fails WP:NORG. The current references are:

1, 2, 7, 8 The organisation's wordpress site
3 Namedrop in a list of National Coalition for Sexual Freedom coalition partners; apparently this means that the group used to pay dues to and fundraise for the NCSF.
4 Passing mention in the minutes of a Unitarian Universalist Association board meeting
5 Passing mention by a HuffPost "contributor" blogger.
6 A blogspot post with trivial coverage of the group.

A search turned up various other passing mentions, but no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Cheers, gnu 57 16:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 16:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV; and it's noms like this that I wish I could post a gif. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Harrison (soccer)

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

Was a procedural keep before. During a WP:BEFORE search, I could not find any significant coverage at all; only trivial mentions like this. She does not appear to have the potential to pass WP:GNG and her career was extremely brief. Spiderone 15:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible evidence of notability. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time we cut down on the bloat of articles on non-notable football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer. All online coverage is very routine (i.e., match reports that simply show she was in the squad). Jogurney (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid alternatives exist. If she is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:05, 23 November 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. I'm as sceptical as they come with respect to claims for automatic notability for, say, primary schools or degree mills, but it is really not realistic to expect a state research university not to be extensively covered in reliable sources. Sandstein 17:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the current sources count towards notability in my assessment - all from the organisation itself or its partners. I have gone through pages and pages of web search results, and all I found were sites from the university itself or affiliates, press releases, data-dump sites, and this interview (an interview, so not secondary).

Now, I must address the fact that this article has already once been nominated for deletion, as recently as three days ago even. That nomination was withdrawn, for reasons unrelated to notability. Hardly any actual discussion about notability has happened for this article. And to prevent the faulty arguments in that one keep vote from being repeated here: no, WP:UNIGUIDE is not a guideline, it is an essay, and no, this uni is not inherently notable because as used on Wikipedia, 'notability' is not an inherent quality but determined by coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, and no, a quick web search does not show the sourcing can be improved (not my quick web search, at least). PJvanMill)talk( 15:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PJvanMill)talk( 15:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. PJvanMill)talk( 15:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-granting tertiary institution. Well-sourced. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, you say it is well-sourced - would you mind specifying which of the sources in the article you think are worth anything? Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be removed. It is a near copy of the German Wikipedia entry ! See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technische_Hochschule_Ingolstadt

I am a member of this university and I asked a friend to write the English version. So, please withdraw your deletion request. Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.26.144.28 (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-granting tertiary institution. Well-sourced. Clearly notable. But why we have it included on a list devoted to secondary education is a mystery. Unless of course that the proposer has see an auto translation of the word Hochschule and is running on autopilot. ClemRutter (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter why we have it included on a list devoted to secondary education is a mystery Is this about me deletion-sorting it under "education"? If that was incorrect, my apologies, I'm fairly new to deletion sorting and "education" seemed like a logical place for it to go... Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 13:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both the education and schools deletion lists relate to all levels of education, so nothing wrong there. Neither is "devoted to secondary education". -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To give a bit of background: I am here because this article was listed at WikiProject Cleanup and normally I would have cleaned it up. The only reason I even considered making an AfD nomination is that a cleaned-up version of the article would look something like this - and no, I am not exaggerrating. It concerns me that the keep arguers so far seem to have a different definition of "well-sourced" than I do. I challenge those who want this article kept to present an analysis of the sources that goes beyond the citation count. PJvanMill)talk( 13:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm extremely puzzled as to your definition of cleanup if you think that would reduce it to a single-line stub (not that there is anything wrong with stubs). Do you maybe think that sources published by a respectable university are not reliable as to information about itself? You are wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp Note that that says so long as the following criteria are met: ... 5. The Wikipedia article is not primarily based on such sources - which it is in this case. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is seriously lacking. As what is currently in the article is trivial and (or) primary, and I was unable to find any sources when I looked that wasn't either one of those things. So, in no way is this "well-sourced" or "clearly notable," and it's being dishonest about the process to claim otherwise. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we start to delete articles on accredited universities like this one then Wikipedia really is in even more trouble from the deletionist lobby than I've long suspected. Sad that the project has come to this. Goodbye WP:COMMONSENSE. Wikipedia was never meant to be a monolithic bureaucracy in which hard and fast rules trumped common sense. Only the deletionists with their weird love of destroying others' work and slashing Wikipedia's content believe that and it is specifically shot down in several places (e.g. WP:BURO, WP:IAR). Some actions are of no benefit to Wikipedia. Attempting to delete articles like this is one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this for accredited universities that aren't notable have been deleted at AfD or with PRODs before, many times. It's not a new thing and the sky hasn't fallen down because it happens. I think you need to take a deep breath, stop freaking out over the whole thing, and think about this from a less cynical perspective. Things change. That's life. There's millions of universities out there and tere's plenty of articles for actually notable ones that are never going to get deleted. Which is the important thing. It's not like an AfD is final anyway.

One of my main problem with people who act the way you do about this is that they act like AfDs are final when they aren't. The bar to recreate an article when it becomes notable is extremely low. Although, it's much lower for an article that gets deleted through PROD. Which makes me wonder why people like you are so against them, but I digress. The point is, your worrying about nothing because this is a non-issue and it just makes things worse then they need to be. That's usually how it works when someone tries to swim up stream like your doing though. It's not like I feel great about it every time I vote delete when I do and there's definitely some things I wish were a little more lenient, but the guidelines are what they are and most of the time these articles don't ultimately contribute anything to Wikipedia anyway. At least it's better then everything being based on personal opinions and Wikipedia being un-navigable because only 1 out every 2 million articles isn't a three word stub or blank page. It's all about the cost to benefit. All your doing is thinking about the cost of deleting things and from a clearly slanted bad faithed perspective, without factoring in the benefits of not having a bunch of blank or non-encyclopedic stub articles. I understand where your coming from, but it holds back progress in a lot of ways and unnecessarily makes the whole thing more contentious then it needs to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this for accredited universities that aren't notable have been deleted at AfD or with PRODs before, many times. I'd be happy to see an example. I honestly don't recall one. A handful of the myriad small colleges in India etc have been, but I can't remember a European public university being deleted. If you think progress = deletion then further discussion is pointless. All I know is that I've been helping to build this project for over sixteen years and attitudes like yours sadden me and make me wonder what we're doing here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: I didn't say progress=deletion. Nor is that what I think. I agree further discussion is pointless, because it's pointless to have a discussion if your going to miss construe what I say and use it to make wrong readings of my thinking. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, you apparently think "All degree-granting tertiary institutions are inherently notable" (I hope you find that a fair representation of your argument) is just common sense. I think "We cannot base an encyclopedic article just on non-independent sources" is common sense. It just so happens that my common sense is backed by consensus. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find consensus has always been that degree-granting tertiary institutions are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: PJvanMill said you apparently think "all" degree-granting tertiary institutions are "inherently" notable. Maybe the consensus is that "degree-granting tertiary institutions" are notable, but that doesn't necessarily mean "every" degree-granting tertiary institutions is "inherently" notable. As your arguing. Nowhere is such a position that "every degree-granting tertiary institutions is inherently notable" stated anywhere in the guidelines, RfCs, or anywhere else from what I can find. The only thing about it seems to be a clause in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (which is a supplement to the guidelines) that says "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online." The important point there is "most have enough to coverage to notable." Which isn't "all have enough coverage to notable." Also, if they were inherently notable as your implying, then coverage would not even be mentioned in relation to them would it? Given that, clearly the notability guidelines about "coverage" (or lack of it) matters or it wouldn't say it does. I've see nothing anywhere, guideline, RfC, Etc. Etc. that says otherwise either. In the meantime, there's plenty of things confirming that having coverage in multiple reliable independent sources is a bedrock of articles. What there might be some people who have voted keep in AfDs here and there because they think degree-granting tertiary institutions are inherently notable, but random people voting in AfDs is not consensus about anything. What this comes down to is if you think that (random people voting in AfDs) circumvents the other (clear guidelines, broad consensus, Etc. Etc.). --Adamant1 (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp Maybe, but I simply don't see how an acceptable article can be made from the current sources. And I'd argue that the AfD process exists precisely for articles that cannot be made acceptable. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would once again urge you to read WP:STUB. As long as a stub is capable of expansion it is acceptable. The idea that an article on a European public research university is not capable of expansion is, frankly, preposterous. That's even if we do delete everything sourced only to the university's own website, which as I've also said is not necessary per WP:SELFSOURCE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, WP:SELFSOURCE is in fact the reason that I don't think an acceptable article can be made out of this, specifically where it says the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources (emphasis mine). As for your argument that the stub would be capable of expansion, two things: (1) this is not a research university, as you say, but a Fachhochschule - quite something different (2) I still haven't seen a single source that it could be expanded with. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PJvanMill)talk maybe you can give us some time to put references behind all statements. I am glad that I managed to get this entry into wikipedia. It is a lot of work with all the editing and if you delet it, we have to start from scratch. And, please have a look at the German Wikipedia page. This is the best reference. It is online for quite some years now: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technische_Hochschule_Ingolstadt. The English version is a near copy of the German version and strangely, there doesn't seem to be a problem with the German version. However, I can ask that we make changes to the English version. But we need time - at least 3 months - to find all the references. Your example page "this" is not very helpful as it is only one line. People would want to know more about a university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.26.144.28 (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP editor, I don't know whether the article is acceptable on the German Wikipedia - standards can differ between Wikipedias. I certainly don't think the article is acceptable by the standards of the English Wikipedia, though.

The current state of the article does not matter much. The reason that this article is being considered for deletion is not that it is bad, but rather that it looks like it cannot be made good. What we are discussing at "Articles for deletion" is whether the article should exist at all.

You could convince me and other editors that the article should be kept by providing a few reliable, independent sources (for example, news articles) that discuss the university. There's no need to cite them in the article; listing them on this discussion page would do. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' and suggest to withdraw this absurd nomination. Public university with thousands of students. Rankings: [7], [8], [9]. Recent news report: [10]. —Kusma (t·c) 21:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kusma, for providing what looks to be an independent, reliable source. Regarding your 'suggestion': somebody else has vote-non-voted 'delete'. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 22:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep degree granting university which can be easily reliably sourced to secondary sources. I admit news sources were hard to find in a simple web search but searching news sources directly show a number of results. SportingFlyer T·C 11:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biton (footballer)

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

Article about footballer who has only played semi-professionally except for two brief spells abroad where he played in a single Croatian Cup match and two Swedish second division matches. There is no online Portuguese-, Swedish- or Croatian-language coverage of this footballer other than database entries and transfer announcements (and nothing at all which would be in-depth coverage). Although having played in a handful of fully-pro league matches creates a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, there is a long-standing consensus that when an article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this does, the presumption isn't valid. Jogurney (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, and might also fail NFOOTBALL, as the Swedish second tier is not fully-pro, and I have doubts about his appearance in the Croatian Cup. even if he does meet NFOOTBALL, GNG is more important. Giant Snowman 17:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage of the footballer in any of the mentioned languages Spiderone 21:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, low-lever player. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 23 November 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 and stubify. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besa (TV series)

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

Reads as an advertisement for a TV-series. Copyright concern here. The Banner talk 14:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- but perhaps delete everything and start over -- I think the copyvio is a problem as you note here. I think the topic, however, is unquestionably notable as a nationally broadcast TV series with even a fair degree of English coverage, let alone Serbian language coverage [11], [12] matt91486 (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify. I agree that this is a keep because it is a nationally broadcast TV show, and based Matt91486's sources, but yes, this should be stubified. -Citrivescence (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Stewart

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

I cannot see any evidence that she made a significant impact during her very brief career in the W-League. She still appears to be active but only in the lower levels. We have a source here to say that she made 7 appearances in two seasons but there is no record of anything after that. I found two more trivial mentions [13] [14]. Fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer. Not even close to meeting our absurdly broad footballer inclusion criteria, which has allowed Wikipedia to become de facto footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid alternatives exist. If she is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modissa

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

fail WP:CORP, it's normal company provide private services like (digital distribution or rights management .. etc) to other record companies, not a platform or app or website, they didn't work with notable artists directly, they are a part of music group (No inherent notability).

the company established in 2017, no history or awards, and no reliable sources, all refs are links from: itunes - amazon - etc (against WP:SIRS). Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence the company passes WP:NCOMPANY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Modissa[3] works closely with Sout El-Hob Entertainment which is also one of the companies Dozzan Music Group owns, where Sout El-Hob Entertainment acquires exclusive rights to market and distribute the music content of many of the artists and new singing talents in the Arab world, while Modissa[4] distributes, manages and markets this content through all digital stores and streaming platforms worldwide, including YouTube, Anghami, Spotify, iTunes[5], Deezer[6], Amazon[7], Google Play, Apple Music[8], Tidal, and more" This reminds me of the scene from Office Space where they keep asking the guy "so what is it that you do here?" They "work closely" with the companies that interact with the artists, and then they "distribute" the content to the actual platforms that distribute it. They appear to be a division of a company that does something clearly-defined and notable, so they should be mentioned under that article if at all. jp×g 17:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG sources just passing mentions only showing existence not notability. KylieTastic (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Elanga

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

Probably too controversial for PROD so I'm putting it up for AfD. I do not believe that Elanga meets WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG.

[15] - focused on him but quite short
[16] - very brief article about a Twitter video
[17] - yet another article based off a bunch of tweets about a youth football match
[18] - the closest to WP:SIGCOV so far
[19] - he has a lot of articles on United in Focus but I'm guessing that this can't count towards GNG as it would be a non-independent source
[20] - another article based off the same Twitter video and Youth Cup appearance as some of the others

Would suggest delete or draftify. Spiderone 14:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. There is no significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources - just fan site and the usual 'oh wow look at this young player doing a trick in a match' clickbait. Giant Snowman 14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks independent sources to backup the page. Sliekid (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely not notable enough for an article. The funny thing is, he's closer to the first team than Hannibal Mejbri is, and yet Hannibal's article survived deletion over the summer. What a world we live in! – Pee Jay 18:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:52, 20 November 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 17:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tansholpan (telecast)

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

The article reads like an advert, I didn't find any sources. There is a chance there are sources in Kazakh, if anyone speaks the language and can find them - please do. Less Unless (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is both overly promotional and unsourced. Nothing indicates encyclopedic significance for the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Fatal Fury characters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuji Yamazaki

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

Reception section is very lackluster with only trivial mentions and the rest is largely primary sourced. A search for sources also turned up trivial mentions. Wikia-tier material for a fighting game character that fails WP:GNG. Article was clearly created long before modern standards for fictional character notability. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete - The existing references are absolute trivial mentions for the most part, most seemingly just a singular namedrop without any further context. TTN (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Fatal Fury list per above reasons. I suggest Joe Higashi and Billy Kane might also be merged.Tintor2 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whatever list is appropriate, maybe merge the reception section, which looks impressive, until the source check shows it is based half on listicles and half on trivial (one-sentence) mentions in passing. WP:FANCRUFT? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Fatal Fury character list. «=-ias postb□x+=» 13:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main series article. The listicles don't provide sufficient coverage to meet the WP:GNG but is still worth preserving as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Fatal Fury character list per notability concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:43, 25 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Woinfosd (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Peaceful Killing

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

Doesn't passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Same source is used multiple times. Woinfosd (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm usually pretty unsympathetic towards laboured single-song articles, but there's sufficient coverage here: these [21][22][23] are suitable reviews. (collapsed the multiply used source, and removed one paragraph of gushing) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:11, 17 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Woinfosd (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Loewy

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

Looks like a non-notable Lawyer. The sources in the article seem like just mentions. Woinfosd (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Woinfosd (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just checked the sources. He meets WP:GNG and have multiple appearances in media. Some sources are mentioned below:

https://www.forbes.com/2007/02/14/myspace-legal-murdoch-cx_ll_0214myspace.html https://www.statesman.com/article/20120922/NEWS/309229021 https://www.reuters.com/article/2007/02/15/us-newscorp-lawsuit-iduswen432020070215 https://web.archive.org/web/20160304033623/http://www.newsradioklbj.com/news/austin-local-news/lawsuit-claims-teen-shot-police-was-not-armed Please do a WP:BEFORE to make any action on the page. Sliekid (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources meet WP:GNG.JTZegers^Speak
_Aura 16:04, 17 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Woinfosd (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gbagbo Junior Magbi

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

Fails the general notability guideline for players. Doesn't passes WP:BASIC Woinfosd (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Woinfosd (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plays with a top club, played in the semi-final of the 2019–20 CAF Champions League [24]. An article about him[25] describes his career so far. Fram (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The article was created by User:Waccasa, who does not pay attention to lots of issues in his articles. For instance, he should always include categories, create wikidata link whether there was an article in other wikis, and correct lots of other minor issues regarding formatting. I recommend that he initially writes drafts which would be corrected by someone else before being published as new articles. 218.148.223.98 (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this has anything to do with this AfD. Adding categories is best practice, editing Wikidata is purely optional, but these things should be discussed directly with the editor on his talk page, not here. Fram (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL through multiple appearances in the Botola, a WP:FPL, as confirmed by Soccerway, and as Fram as briefly demonstrated, there are sources out there. Article needs improving, not deleting. I strongly suspect that @Woinfosd: has failed to comply with WP:BEFORE. Giant Snowman 14:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFOOTY Spiderone 14:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above meets WP:NFOOTBALL Sliekid (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Tucker

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

Tucker's only claim to fame is playing 21 minutes of W-League football over two substitute appearances a few years ago. She is still an active player but only in the lower Australian leagues. There is no guarantee that she will ever play at a high level again. I have done a quick WP:BEFORE search but nothing that I found indicates WP:GNG; it was all just passing mentions in routine announcements or match reports [26] [27] [28]. Spiderone 12:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she meets football inclusion rules for playing less than half an hour we have a huge problem on our hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No solid reason has been given to justify the deletion of this content while valid alternatives exist. If she is not worthy of a standalone article this can be redirected somewhere. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 23 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EInvest

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

Native advertisement. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 09:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence the company passes WP:NCOMPANY. This was soft deleted before, maybe salt it this time? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Salting will not prevent a soft delete reversal. There has been no prior consensus to delete, so please establish a new consensus here, but salting would not be appropriate unless it is recreated against the community's wishes sometime in the future. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to be more than WP:MILL in any other respect, and the sources are pretty lacking. They trade ETFs? They're based in Sydney? Neither of these are particularly memorable qualities. One might be inclined to deem them notable for introducing Australia's first ESG ETF, but this is indeed a subject of such niche importance it's a redlink. jp×g 17:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG no significant coverage. KylieTastic (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing as delete rather than soft delete as the nom makes very strong arguments and presents clear evidence of a thorough BEFORE, and no one has raised any dispute to their arguments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Stone

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

I came across this while trying to clean out the amount of pages that listed Reader's Favorite (a vanity award and pay review site) as a source. I initially thought that this author was notable and did a general cleanup. Original state can be seen here.

Long story short, the reviews fall into a few categories. They are either self-published blog sites or they're sites that offer to sell authors their services, be it vanity awards or reviews. The National Indie Excellence Award is almost certainly a vanity award. Authors must pay to enter ($75) and literally hundreds of people are given awards, meaning that you're guaranteed to receive an award as long as you pay their fee. See some of the comments here about it. In the pre-cleaning state it mentions a review from Harriet Klausner, however that's not really a good source since there is a lot of skepticism about whether or not she actually read the books she reviewed. Some stated that she read the first chapter or few pages, then reviewed based on that.

The Midwest Book Review is dubious at best, as they're now a pay review site. I can't ascertain whether these reviews were ones that were purchased or not, so I left them up. However because MBR does do paid reviews, this makes their reviews suspect and as such, I don't see these as good RS. The other link is to a paper, which is good, but it's not enough on its own to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was some content added to the article, claiming that the deletion is censorship since Stone supports Trump and his assertions that there was election fraud. Because this is unsourced, original research, and most importantly far from the truth, I've let the people at WP:BLP/N know to keep an eye out on the article so they can remove any similar claims. (IE, not to ask them to contribute) FWIW, I wasn't really aware that she supported Trump and don't really care about that - what I care about is coverage. When I searched I would find cases where she was brought on to discuss a topic, however she was never the focus of those media spots nor was her work. In order for appearances to count towards notability she would have to be the focus of those pieces and it would have to be in depth. Even then, I'm aware that a large portion of Wikipedia would see these as interviews and as such, a primary source. I do think that there's a case to be made about some interview appearances asserting notability, as the individual would have to have some level of notability to be interviewed, but I'm also aware that these are weaker sources than say, a review or newspaper article. There just wasn't really anything out there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage appears to clearly not qualify under WP:NAUTHOR so we are left with the WP:GNG claims of witnessing electoral, um, somethings? Unfortunately, these all appear sourced to non-reliable sources and are therefor not applicable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Ways to Pharaoh Khufu

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

I came across this while trying to do a little house cleaning to remove links to Reader's Favorite, which is a known vanity award and pay review site. (The first review is free, but the neutrality is debatable considering that they have a vested interest in getting people to buy their services.)

I thought that this book might be notable since I saw a link to a Record Online article, however the article itself is fairly short and little more than a reposting of the book info. The only review is from Kirkus Indie, the site's paid review arm. There's really nothing out there to show that this book is notable.

For transparency's sake, I did remove some content from the external links section, specifically a link to Reader's Favorite, a link to the publisher's site, a link to the Kirkus review already in the article, and a self-published blog review. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything either. Haukur (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBOOK, on google all results are bookstores --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 18:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cox (darts player)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SPORTSPERSON or WP:MUSICBIO. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (✉) 15:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He has been in some documented pro darts competitions, so I will leave it to the experts on sports articles to determine if he is notable in that realm. However, in no way whatsoever does this guy deserve to be described as a working musician, and I will remove those unsupported claims from his article. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 03:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ok, so music is out, but does he hit on NSPORTS?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Darts doesn't have a SNG. Competing in the UK Open means nothing as anyone with a pulse can qualify for that event. Cox fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Above, I avoided a vote because I was new to the guidelines for sports articles (my area is music). But after learning more about the requirements at WP:NSPORTS and investigating Mr. Cox's shortage of media notice beyond basic entries in directories of darts dudes, I will endorse Dougal18's vote and recommend deletion as well. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 16:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references to support this person's notability in this area.10Sany1? (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:20, 23 November 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.

He has participated in darts events, and won a Professional Darts Corporation Tour Card, which isn't easy to do. That alone means he should stay, and has played in majors, such as the UK Open. The rules need to be more stringent for darts players. Arguably on the same logic, most footballers' accounts should be deleted on the same opinion. Cox, amongst others, are professionals and have participated in televised events. That alone should keep him.JRRobinson (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Krueger

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hayden (rugby union) and many others: Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby not a notable league and no appearances anyway), no sources to indicate passing of WP:GNG, only run of the mill mentions about his recent joining of a team. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not playing but just being on the roaster is not enough for notability, especially when the league in question does not grant automatic notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of passing GNG or NRU Spiderone 14:13, 21 November 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. Ospina is credited with starting a new architectural movement. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 19:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Ospina

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

Absolutely zero coverage, name mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would hold the view that subject meets notability under WP:AUTHOR as their book has been cited in numerous other books over the last few decades. - Diddlydee123

@Diddlydee123: I have thought about this for a while, and don't have a response. I'll ask up at the help to determine if it is genuine criteria, as at the moment the article has references to support the BLP, as at the moment, the references don't support a BLP. They are name drops. scope_creep^Talk 08:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is only effectively one references that sufficiently in-depth to support a BLP, which is the Guardian reference. scope_creep^Talk 08:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ospina's book has been cited 45 times according to Google Scholar. scope_creep^Talk 12:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifies under WP:NAUTHOR as the author of book (Housing Ourselves) that has been reliably credited as starting a significant architectural movement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is solid keep. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 19:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awara Elkington

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator that the sources are not enough to satisfy the GNG. There are currently three sources in the article: one is a data sheet, one is a fan bio, and one does not look very reliable (no author) and is also not very in-depth. PJvanMill)talk( 15:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above comments. I also performed a Google search and couldn't find any other sources than those already provided. Edge3 (talk) 05:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 12:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Williams (rugby union)

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a nice article here that could be used but then everything else is just routine announcements like this. Spiderone 20:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tonata Lauti

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage required by WP:NBIO Edge3 (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - independent sources covering Lauti are sorely lacking Spiderone 16:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Work of Art

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

Just another non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish industrial metal band. The article has a multiple issues tag on it, including notability and improve references. This is always a bad sign. But the sourcing in the article is abysmal indeed - dead links and unreliable looking sites. The only reliable source I have found is an album review on Metal.de, and that's it. The rest of the results are the usual junk like databases, streaming links, youtube videos and retail sites. No evidence of notable members or labels. The Swedish page has even worse sourcing - actually, it isn't sourcing, just the band's official site. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2008-08 Viktor Eng ✗ Delete, 2008-08 Tobias Eng ✗ Delete

Logs: 2009-02 ✗ G8, 2009-02 move to → UserViolent Work of Art, 2009-02 ↻ restored, 2009-02 ✗ A7

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability guidelines. No reliable sources cited. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:09, 17 November 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 "keep" opinions don't address the deletion rationale, which is insufficient sourcing to establish notability. Sandstein 17:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westin Kāʻanapali Ocean Resort Villas

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson The fact that the nomination mentions an essay does not make it invalid, and it does not mean the article should be kept. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 16:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is one source in the article, and that source is not specifically about the subject of the article and does not go into all that much detail about the subject. So, I do not think this is significant coverage, and thus this does not meet the GNG. PJvanMill)talk( 16:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the hotel is the largest in Maui and one of the largest in Hawaii; just because the current state of the article is poor does not mean the subject matter is not notable. Carbrera (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising/promos, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. This is a nice, normal, hotel (wish I was there), not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 19:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but consider ATD. Do we have a list of hotels on Maui article? The coverage I found is blurby and only a few sentences at length ("construction starts" etc, see [29] [30]) and I don't see any SIGCOV, which doesn't surprise me, but there's also enough coverage that we could include encyclopaedic information about the hotel somewhere on Wikipedia without it turning into a travel guide. SportingFlyer T·C 00:40, 24 November 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. There is some coverage, but the community is divided on how to judge it. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Bangkok

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable run-of-the-mill hotel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The optimal course of action might be to re-scope and rename China Resources Tower to All Seasons Place, and merge/redirect the hotel there. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Yeager, John (2008-10-05). "Bangkok joins the powerhouse". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Advertisement. Writer is selling the hotel.

Feinstein, Paul. "Fodor's Expert Review: Conrad Bangkok". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Generic listing in Fodor's, a trade publication. No indication of notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. simple listings or compilations, such as: of product or service offerings

Bright, Craig (2019-06-06). "Hotel review: Conrad Bangkok". Business Traveller. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Generic listing. No indication of notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. simple listings or compilations, such as: of product or service offerings

Nayer, Anjeeta (2013-04-26). "Review: Conrad Bangkok Hotel". Macaron Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Generic listing, a review No indication of notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. simple listings or compilations, such as: of product or service offerings

Jirasakunthai, Choosak (2003-01-10). "Conrad kicks off with superhero stunt". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Affiliated content from or by the Telegraph, indicating it is press-release, or some form of churnalism. Fails WP:SIRS.

Rungfapaisarn, Kwanchai; Lueng-uthai, Patcharee (2006-10-09). "Conrad revamps for executives". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Fails WP:ORGIND. General manager Gregory J Meadows said the hotel had opened two more executive floors last month, adding 40 executive rooms to bring the total to around 200

Long, Rachel (November 2003). "Conrad Bangkok Hotel: 2003 gold key finalist guestroom". Hospitality Design. Vol. 25, no. 8.
Mekloy, Pongpet (2019-07-25). "Conrad Bangkok". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Straight press-release. Fails WP:DEL14, WP:SIRS, WP:NOTADVERTISING.

Sritama, Suchat (2006-03-09). "Conrad Phuket opens in '07". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Fails WP:ORGIND. A press-release. Conrad Bangkok general manager Gregory Meadows said yesterday the resort would cater to the high-end leisure market, attracting guests from Western and wealthy Asian countries.

Jirasakunthai, Choosak (2003-11-14). "Conrad seeks to lure diners". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Fails WP:ORGIND A press-release Gregory J Meadows, general manager of Conrad Bangkok, said the hotel was severely affected by the Sars scare just after it opened early in the year. scope_creep^Talk 11:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources with quotes

Yeager, John (2008-10-05). "Bangkok joins the powerhouse". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes:
There's a broad selection of mid-range lodgings and, if the budget will stand it, some rather fine high-end establishments.
Among the latter is the Conrad Bangkok, a relatively recent addition to the city's phalanx of five-star properties.
Since the Conrad opened in 2003, around 80 per cent of its customers have been business types, but it's keen to promote its virtues to regular folks, too. And with ample reason, because this is a seriously good place to stay.
The Conrad describes itself as "a true 21st-century hotel ... with cutting-edge design and unparalleled service". That sounds like a standard piece of marketing puff, but it's absolutely accurate -- particularly the service part.
Architecturally, the Conrad is quite unlike the standard tower or upright slab. Its unusual octagonal footprint allows rooms of differing shapes and provides a variety of angles, aspects and views.
...
There's plenty more to like about this hotel. Judging by a sensational meal at its Japanese restaurant, the unusually named Drinking Tea Eating Rice, the food is terrific; the treatments at the Seasons Spa are out of this world; and there are nice touches such as a choice of eight types of pillow for people who are picky about such things.
If physical exertion is on the program, there are floodlit tennis courts for night owls, a 24-hour gym for insomniacs and even a rooftop jogging track.
The Conrad has a fleet of Mercedes-Benz limousines in which passengers can smarten up with a refresher towel and a glass of iced water before settling back with the morning paper or watching the news updates on CNN while receiving a back massage from the seat.
Feinstein, Paul. "Fodor's Expert Review: Conrad Bangkok". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The review notes:
Surrounded by embassies and attached to a massive shopping and condominium complex, the Conrad is a stunning, high-end property that prides itself on incredible service and endless amenities. Ideal for families and business travelers alike, the hotel is a polished gem with great restaurants, a top of the line spa, and is in a safe and upscale location.
...
Though it’s large, this upscale and elegant property still devotes themselves to personalized service. The hotel is attached to a high-end shopping complex and also sports two of the best restaurants in the city. A resort pool is great for kids and activities abound with tennis courts, fitness classes, and a running track. Not near public transit, the hotel provides a shuttle to the closest station. Clean, safe, and delightful, the Conrad hits on all notes and is great for business and recreation alike.
Bright, Craig (2019-06-06). "Hotel review: Conrad Bangkok". Business Traveller. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The review notes:
Verdict

The hotel’s renovation has certainly given the Conrad Bangkok a fresh, contemporary facelift that helps bring it up to standard with the many other new properties opening their doors around the city. As is common with newly renovated hotels, I discovered a couple of very minor teething problems that could do with being ironed out – namely, the plug sockets that needed to be broken in, as well as the somewhat recalcitrant in-room sensors – but I’m sure these issues will be addressed promptly and they didn’t really negatively impact my stay. The rooms are sleek and sizeable – a valuable find in any Asian capital – and the interesting mix of urban and resort styles gives the property a professional yet relaxing atmosphere overall.
Nayer, Anjeeta (2013-04-26). "Review: Conrad Bangkok Hotel". Macaron Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes:
The Conrad Bangkok is situated in Bangkok’s Ploenchit district, a modern though relatively tranquil enclave of the city and is home to tall office towers, consulates and embassies and the lush Lumpini Park. The hotel extends over two towering edifices, one which hosts the hotel and the other features the Conrad Residences for long-term stays. For our stay at the Conrad, we had chosen king-size room with an upgrade to the executive floor. We were awarded a room on high floor, which afforded stunning views of the Bangkok cityscape.
The room was very spacious and elegantly adorned in soothing, muted colors and anointed with tasteful Thai-style decorative accents. As is the fashion nowadays, the bath area of the room in the Conrad is separated from the sleep area by a transparent glass wall. An interesting if not arresting design concept, though if you rather have privacy, the view can be easily obliterated by way of a heavy silk drape which can be drawn with the flick of a switch.
Jirasakunthai, Choosak (2003-01-10). "Conrad kicks off with superhero stunt". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes:
The capital's newest hotel, the Conrad Bangkok, has made its debut with a unique opening that featured 10 "Spidermen" scaling its walls.
General manager Gregory Meadows said the joint venture between the M Thai Group and the China Resort Co wanted to make the public aware that the hotel was different from others in Bangkok.
The 392-room new arrival on Wireless Road is set to emerge as a serious contender to the nearby hotel Plaza Athenee.
...
Among the hotel's unique touches are its interior - in modern Thai style - and the staff uniforms, for which the hotel has eschewed the cliched traditional Thai look.
...
The Conrad Bangkok is the third Conrad hotel to open in Asia, after Hong Kong and Singapore, and a fourth - the Conrad Metropolitan - will open later this year on Sathorn Road.
Rungfapaisarn, Kwanchai; Lueng-uthai, Patcharee (2006-10-09). "Conrad revamps for executives". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes:
After a slight drop in its occupancy rate this year as a result of "unfavourable conditions", the Conrad Bangkok hotel expects to benefit from a rise in average daily room rates resulting from its expanded and renovated executive floors.
...
The renovation features a bigger and more stylish lounge, and new guestrooms and suites with a stunning array of hi-tech toys. These include 32-inch flat-screen LCD televisions, iPod docking stations, DVD players and a whopping 12Mbps in-room high-speed broadband Internet access.
...
Earlier, the hotel initiated a limousine service that it says is "inspired by individuality". Each limousine is named for one of the magical creatures of Thai mythology to ensure safety and security.
Long, Rachel (November 2003). "Conrad Bangkok Hotel: 2003 gold key finalist guestroom". Hospitality Design. Vol. 25, no. 8.
The article notes:
Think Thai silk, glowing teak, and carved timber platform beds. In the Conrad Bangkok Hotel guestrooms, there's no mistaking this is Thailand, where a sort of sensible elegance and use of local materials can clearly create a sense of place.
In outfitting the architectural shell of a 375-key guest tower constructed several years ago but never finished, the Singapore design team of Dallas-based Wilson & Associates aimed for local flair. "Thailand has a very rich culture, and typical Thai architecture and style is apparent everywhere you go in Bangkok," says design director Michael Fiebrich. "What we wanted to do was borrow on that strong influence but express it in a more contemporary way to create something with a distinct regional flavor, as well as an international twist."
Mekloy, Pongpet (2019-07-25). "Conrad Bangkok". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes:
The prime area between Wireless Road and Soi Ruamrudee is home to several upscale hotels. Keeping up with the steep competition, Conrad Bangkok, a veteran in the district, boasts recently refurbished guest accommodations and facilities. The facelifted interior subtly but beautifully blends Thai elegance with modern feel and practicality.
Sritama, Suchat (2006-03-09). "Conrad Phuket opens in '07". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes:
It follows the Conrad Bangkok, which has been open for more than three years. The resort will be its sixth in Asia after Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo and Bali.
...
Meadows said Conrad Bangkok is the first hotel in Bangkok, even the world, to provide a luxury limousine service to its guests.
Conrad Bangkok is running 95 per cent full and is expected to be 85-per-cent occupied for the entire year, the same as last year. Almost all its guests are businessmen from Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the US.
Jirasakunthai, Choosak (2003-11-14). "Conrad seeks to lure diners". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes:
The Conrad Bangkok is running an aggressive marketing campaign for this year's festive season, offering its restaurant customers the chance to win flights overseas and four nights at one of the chain's top-end hotels.
...
Conrad's new set lunch is considerably cheaper than buffet lunches at many other luxury hotels, which generally cost more than Bt500 per person.
...
Conrad is one of many new luxury hotels in Bangkok.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Conrad Bangkok to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable hotel. Native advertisement. Sources presented fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14, WP:NOTDIR. scope_creep^Talk 11:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is already a Conrad hotel article. scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable hotel as ably demonstrated by Cunard. The "rebutals" by scope_creep seem entirely un-persuasive, for example looking at the no 1 source by Yeager , there's no clear evidence to label the source an advertisement. It says "The writer was a guest of the ConradBangkok." - if the hotel made a good impression on the author, it's good honest writing to reflect that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FeydHuxtable: It is one of 39 in the series. Please describe to me how it is notable, particularly since you completely ignoring the references? If he was a guest then he a WP:COI and reference isn't a toss. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it's one of series of 39,000 , if a particular hotel receives "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which as per Cunnard is the case here, then it's notable. This isn't something I'd like to get into a long discussion about - if you need further explanation, please see WP:GNG FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: (I'm presuming it's you that wrote it, but per WP:TPO it's best to keep what you said and what Cunard said separate, not "interleaving") what is the evidence you have for your review of the Daily Telegraph source: Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Advertisement. Writer is selling the hotel. Is the author connected to the hotel? Are you saying that the material is entirely copied from a press release you've seen? Are you saying there's no "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact-checking that are" attributable to the author/Telegraph? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources give it significant coverage. You get reviewed in a magazine, then your hotel is notable. This isn't just local coverage, and they don't review everything. Dream Focus 16:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ The standard for operating hotels needs to be WP:NORG and I think this just barely scrapes by with the articles from the Nation. I also want to strongly discourage the use of travel blogs and reviews as reliable sources, especially in this day in age where magazines and hotels typically have relationships - they aren't something we'd stand for when we're editing any sort of normal article so they shouldn't be used to prove notability. I'm concerned the article is a bit too promotional as it stands and I understand why it was brought to AfD, but between the Nation articles and the fact there's almost certainly neutral Thai coverage the hotel didn't pay for or encourage, there's enough coverage for a non-promotional, neutral article to be written. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I assumed there would be Thai press, but after spending a decent amount of time on a before search, I can't find anything. I also don't understand Thai, so I'm not going to be very strong with the deletion, but my previous vote was on the assumption Thai language media would be readily available to pass WP:NORG and I haven't been able to find anything. Will take another look if someone does better. I also strongly do not believe that review books lend any notability whatsoever to hotels - their job is to document the hotel's existence, and often times they aren't independent of the source. I've written or worked on a number of hotel articles, and a truly notable hotel will have lots of information written about it other than reviews. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great pile on and with no analysis. Has NOTDIR, WP:DEL4, WP:DEL14 and WP:NCORP magically dissapeared. There is 39 of these hotels, with another eight in the pipeline, and they are identical for the most part. Looking at it from a purely "encyclopedic content" perspective, each article will be a general listing of the same information, in the same format, consisting of low-quality location information, in a directory like structure, managed by UPE. How-to find it, just like Google. scope_creep^Talk 00:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Great pile on and with no analysis - I'm leaning weak delete here, but I'm concerned about the quality of your arguments, too. Simply saying something is problematic per "ORGIND" without providing evidence isn't actually better than the handwaves to GNG, etc.. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either each and any Hilton hotel is notable by the simple fact of being Hilton branded. Or you have to prove that this one is notable among the other Hiltons. Nobody has argued along the first line, while a specific notability is not proven by the 'references' given. Pldx1 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good sources found, analysis above has demonstrated the current sources are low quality. C'mon, people, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES just says that "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic." As the page doesn't contain such data, the policy is irrelevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. It's short and can be shortened so merge could be discussed. For merge, my concern would be that the apparent merge candidate is at a too high level to contain this. Delete conflicts with our standards. WP will be worse off without the article's information. gidonb (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that Scope Creep in a comment provides an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. If this line of thought is irrelevant for the purpose keep argumentation, it should be irrelevant also for delete argumentation! gidonb (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Saying that WP will be worse off without the precious knowledge that Conrad Bangkok also has a gym, a spa, a swimming pool, a tennis court and a rooftop jogging track rather appears as a joke from a delete voter!. Moreover N-O-R-G, one of the famous letter soup used here, seems to say something about inheritance. Are you sure to be a keep voter! ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That text needs to be removed as promotional, I don't think anyone is arguing for keeping that. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pldx1's statement is a typical red herring argument. Totally irrelevant and indicative of the weakness of the case for deletion. I said that WP will be worse off without the article's information. Not that all information is relevant. On the contrary. I explicitly said that the article can be shortened. The comment above is a total reversal of my opinion and should be discounted as such. Also, the comment about letter soup is nonsense. Please write something because you have something to add, not because you can't help yourself. gidonb (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Cunard are more than sufficient to establish notability per WP:ORG and most certainly per WP:GNG. The objections to Cunard's sources are unconvincing. E.g. the first source, [31] provides in-depth non-perfunctory review of the hotel. Yes, the review is quite complimemtary, but there is no evidence that the author from The Daily Telegraph should be regarded as non-independent. The article was published in the Features section of the paper. I see no reason why we are supposed to treat this source as "advertisement" rather than as a bona fide independent source; at least no such reason has been offered. Nsk92 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How do you read * The writer was a guest of theConradBangkok in this complimentary piece of advertisement?. How many herrings of various kinds have been offered at the 6 restaurants and lounges at the hotel including KiSara restaurant which serves authentic Japanese cuisine and Liu restaurant which offers traditional Chinese food to produce such a great Feature ? Pldx1 (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided here are enough to write a policy compliant article. At least enough for the entry to exist. Maybe it should be merged to a list of hotels (stand alone or as part of the article on the city) but that can be decided at article talk pages. Like a book, the sources for an article about a hotel will include reviews of the hotel, and reviews like Fodors are legit. Of course the reviewer would have to stay at the hotel to do the review. (Although it should be blind.) On balance, I think the sources satisfy GNG. Le v¡v ich 17:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi @Rhododendrites: Bangkok joins the powerhouse and you don't think it is affiliate news that has the exact article on another newspaper on the list above. You wonder why I commented in the middle of Cunard comments, because it looks kind of filibuster to stop folk discussing the article. The wilful ignorance show here regarding WP:NCORP and WP:NOTDIR is worrying. More so because this is one of 38 in the Conrad range, with the exact same profile in Fodor's that the rest have, virtually the same as this profile article. The Conrad range is part of the 6000 odd owned by Hilton. There is virtually nothing you can say about it, except that it is big. It fails WP:NCORP with trivial coverage that would expect of a big hotel. Not a single fact makes it stand amongst its mates. scope_creep^Talk 03:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and you don't think it is affiliate news that has the exact article on another newspaper on the list above - I don't know what this means. If another source picked up this story, that's fine -- it counts as one. I was asking for justification it's an ORGIND problem. Inline responses are typically frowned upon, because it's confusing. If Cunard is doing something wrong, that can be dealt with without confusing the text for the readers. Meh. I'm not terribly interested in debating this one. It seems like a weak delete, but I'm concerned about people throwing around ORGIND and waving away sources without ORGIND actually being a problem. No need for further reply here, I suppose. I'll bring it back up if I see one worth arguing over. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From now on I will do separate comments, if that is helpful. scope_creep^Talk 14:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Conrad Hotels. There's some coverage suggesting notability, but not enough for a standalone article. I suggest bundling the info about the Conrad properties into Conrad Hotels. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with User:Nsk92's opinion. Please be careful WP:IDONTLIKE here. VocalIndia (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The hotel has been mentioned though as an "alternative state quarantine (ASQ)" facility by the Thai govt in the following articles 1, 2 and 3 (in Thai). — Emperork (talk) 23:13, 29 November 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) — Amkgp 💬 15:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Metropark Hotel Causeway Bay Hong Kong

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could be expanded significantly using the sources here Spiderone 10:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Orton, Toby. "Fodor's Expert Review: Metropark Hotel Causeway Bay". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
2. "【港區國安法】香港仲有邊啲中資酒店? 中旅持有維景酒店成國安公署臨時基地". Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2020-07-08. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
3. "公署圖則禁查閱屋署：屬藝術品". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2020-07-09. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
4. Mok, Maisy (2020-07-08). "Hotel turned into security office". The Standard. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
5. Wong, Rachel (2020-07-19). "When Big Brother moved in next door: How Chinese state security brought fear to a Hong Kong neighbourhood". Hong Kong Free Press. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Metropark Hotel Causeway Bay Hong Kong to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard; there are enough sources covering this; article needs improving but not deleting Spiderone 08:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this article can be improved with the many sources that Cunard has listed above. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and improve, sure) — I note that the nominator has been proposing AfD on numerous articles on hotels (I can't help wondering why?), always on the basis of the run-of-the-mill argument, which in some cases does indeed apply (FWIW); IMO, it does not here. Alone the takeover of this hotel by the spooks makes it interesting and notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 17 November 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Kolkata

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources in article are mainly about nn events held at the hotel, not about the hotel itself. WP:SIGCOV requires direct and in depth coverage; notability is not inherited from WP:ROUTINE WP:MILL coverage of nn events. Other sources seem to be 404. The one source that was a possible [32] for WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." is about the opening, but without anything else, it doesn't meet the guidelines. It's simply a normal, popular, well run, luxury hotel, nothing encyclopedic. // Timothy :: talk 10:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 10:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This article violates WP:PROMO, and there's no non-promotional text to keep. The sourcing in the article isn't great, either, though there are a couple there which work towards GNG. I'd delete on WP:PROMO grounds but would encourage recreation with better sources. SportingFlyer T·C 00:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NBUILD states "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Such coverage has not been presented here; references presented consist of few mentions in passing, and the list of (minor) awards is totally unreferenced. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 26 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Hotel, Limerick

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - does being Ireland's tallest hotel make it notable by default? Sources I found
[33] - coverage of sale
[34] - more coverage of sale in local paper
[35] - murder that took place there
[36] - news story about new suite in local paper
[37] - brief mention in national newspaper

Not sure that any of that counts as WP:SIGCOV Spiderone 09:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. (Or redirect). There does, per Spiderone above, seem to be at least a moderate amount of coverage of a type which falls within the bounds of the WP:NBUILDING criteria. (IE: "notable as a result of [..] architectural importance". Where there are otherwise several reliable sources confirming the subject's status as Ireland's tallest hotel. And among the tallest buildings in the state overall.) If there is consensus that we don't need a standalone title to cover the few paras that might convey this information, then a merge/redirect to Dalata Hotel Group#Hotels might be more appropriate. Over outright deletion. (I otherwise don't see that this is as a cut and dried as the nomination suggests. The sources are perhaps not overwhelming. But they're not underwhelming or nonexistent either...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm looking at keeping this article as per my sources above. Okay, it's not going to win an award for most notable hotel of all time but there's enough there Spiderone 11:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources provided by Spiderone. -Hatchens (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. This used to be the tallest hotel in Ireland. Received plenty of coverage. WP:SNOWBALL also applies! gidonb (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I understand why the article was nominated - it's not great and arguably violates WP:PROMO. Spiderone's sources aren't great either, but they're just about good enough to show that we can write a neutral encyclopaedia article on the building. I'd like another one or two more good sources myself, though - if notability is a sliding scale of greys, this one could go either way if no other sources exist, which I doubt. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Maquieira

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and new of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-07 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a very well written article but unfortunately the subject doesn't pass GNG. As mentioned above, the sources provide nothing more than passing mentions and routine reports of signing for a new club Spiderone 12:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Spiderone - this fails WP:GNG due to the fact he wasn't significantly covered in places and the other sources aren't reliable/independent. SportingFlyer T·C 15:46, 23 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ayokunle Ayoko

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

LinkedIn type BLP profile of a non-notable lawyer who has various claims to a modest degree of attention but none of enduring significance. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand this perspective and I have edited the article to reflect the subject's recent award by Diligent Corporation. I think being considered part of a top 100 category of governance practitioners in a specialized field makes him notable.I have also seen a lot of references to him in Nigerian newspapers. ^[1] ^[2]

Sucess001 (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi I’ve amended your contribution to put your !vote in bold so the automated tools can recognise use it. All the best. Mccapra (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my standards for lawyers and WP:TOOSOON. Neither the U. of Ibadan nor Nigerian_Law_School are ranked high enough to convey automatic notability. He has not been enrolled in a prestigious legal fraternity or honor society, and his work in the corporate field is ordinary. If he earns his post-graduate degree from USW then he would be on his way to passing WP:NPROF, but right now it's just too soon. I would not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Most of the sources provided are self-published or not independent of the subject. The awards and certifications he's earned do not rise to the level of providing notability, mainly because WP:BIO requires coverage of the subject to be "significant". Edge3 (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Hall (American football)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Also fails WP:GNG, as I was unable to find any significant coverage for him. He was a backup/third-string running back at an FBS school for two years and a practice squad player in the NFL for three years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His college stats are here, and he totaled only 416 rushing yards in two years as a backup at Ole Miss. The article was created when he signed with the Bills in 2008, but he never appeared in a regular season game per this. Cbl62 (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of article on non-notable football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which line is that? Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Albihn

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

Contested PROD with reasoning 1-His officiated 13 international matches were enough for notability as became BIO article such as football player which notable with play at least a international match (even friendly). 2- There are a lot articles in wikipedia as this article (with database sources or without newspaper sources

In my view, the subject does not pass WP:GNG. He gets some coverage [38] [39] but it's all trivial. Referees are not inherently notable for the matches that they have officiated. They need to have at least some coverage that focuses on them as an individual. Spiderone 19:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG. Giant Snowman 19:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since coverage does exist – a search in the newspaper archives at https://tidningar.kb.se/?q=%20%22ernst%20albihn%22 shows a bit of coverage; several obituaries in the larger newspapers, which may or may not be primary, some coverage of his death, but also a couple of articles about him including a piece in Expressen (not a despicable tabloid at the time) about "the best Swedish football referees through history" from 1951, where Albihn was ranked 4th. Most sources are not freely available, unfortunately, but I have added some info based on the sources I can access. I'll be able to read the locked newspaper sources from the library at work, but I don't know when I will next be there – not before this AfD closes anyway, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per bonadea. The best sources for persons who died in 1944 are often not easily accessible online; the articles about him in the newspaper archive are from the major Swedish newspapers. /Julle (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because other (referee) articles exist is not a valid argument, and making a ranking of best Swedish referees is small change. David notMD (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere in any of the Keep comments that anyone has made other stuff exists argument, User:David notM; the case being made is about sources existing. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Digging around, I can see other mentions in contemporary books. The sources added to this article since the AFD began, bring this to a level of keep. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Johnson (offensive lineman)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played in a professional game. I am also unable to find any significant coverage towards WP:GNG, but it's difficult to search because of his very common name. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as (1) he does not pass WP:GNG - my searches also failed to turn up significant coverage and the reality is that collegiate offensive linemen only get GNG-level coverage in rare cases, (2) he doesn't qualify under WP:NCOLLATH - second-team All-SEC honors in 2006 isn't enough, and (3) he doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON - the article was created in 2007 when he signed with an NFL team, but he never appeared in a regular season game. Cbl62 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:49, 18 November 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile search

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

Essay-like article describing a market from a marketing guide's POV. If it were to be trimmed, there would barely be an article left, and it's clear nobody's really touched it since 2010. Sourcing is terrible, and it's just served as marketer bait for a while. WP:TNT applies in my opinion, if this is even a notable topic at all. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 14:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a how to essay that is poorly-sourced and where most of the text is nine years out-of-date. Does not satisfy the WP:GNG or any applicable WP:SNG. The concept is possibly notable but this article is so lacking it deserves WP:TNT so another editor may be able to start over. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Themis Medicare

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

no indication of meeting WP:NCORP. References given are WP:ROUTINE and google searches not finding any WP:significant coverage. Article has been recreated and speedy deleted many times so if deleted, salting may be called for. noq (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is on a public limited pharmaceutical company in India. I feel that the article should not be deleted as many other Indian pharmaceutical companies in its peer group has similar Wikipedia articles. So, the article is likely to have reference value. Meanwhile the article has also been improved, and it can further improve with other experienced editors improving it over time. Thank you.Stim07 (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion:? This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-11 ✍️ create, 2019-03 ✗ G11, 2011-07 ✗ A7, 2011-07 ✗ G11

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This company is listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange. I am unable to locate any analyst reports on the company which are acceptable as sources to establish notability. None of the other references I can locate meet the criteria in NCORP. Unless sources can be found, my !vote will be to Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources available do not demonstrate compliance with WP:NCORP and the only arguments for keep are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LISTED, neither of which are grounds for keeping. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything raised by Eggishorn. It's listed on a stock exchange -- anything else? jp×g 18:43, 27 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhavil entertainment awards 2019

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

First of all this award fails to establish notability criteria. Also the award is granted to an individual or organization in exchange for payment or another form of remuneration as well as for promotional reasons. Shahoodu (talk) 04:23, 17 November 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 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit 21st Asianet Film Awards. I have listed more sources, than in this article. Mazhavil is a renowned unit, and so are the people who won the awards. Renowned sites would not comment on the event, as the Manorama group has competition in every sector, and each site would not want to popularize them anymore.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An award is not notable simply because it is awarded by a notable entity or has been awarded to notable individuals or entities. Mazhavil Manorama is just a reputed channel. The award is given mainly on the basis of personal interest of the public. Also sources used to establish notability must address the award itself directly and in-depth. Sources that are primarily about recipients of an award, rather than the award itself, do not establish notability. Here the sourcws are covering about the recipents of awards. There is not a single source that covers about the Mazhavil Awards in depth.Please see Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals). The other option here is to merge this article into the article Mazhavil Manorama under a new heading rather than deleting Shahoodu (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my doubt on 21st Asianet Film Awards, as it has a similar background--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An individual awards ceremony for a non-notable award (which has only existed since 2019, and I can't find any evidence of a ceremony in 2020 so it may have been an one-off), sourced only with primary sources, is not notable. The award itself is not notable: there is no coverage of it in secondary sources, and as observed by the nominator it is/was a for-pay function. I wouldn't suggest merging the content, since there aren't any independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant coverage in reliable sources is required establish notability, whereas in this case, the article is merely relying upon primary sources and lacks coverage in secondary sources. DrJNU (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DrJNU (talk) 13:33, 23 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Broussard

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU and Philippines aren't a high performance union), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Broussard and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let's go through the sources: the sdlegion one is a dead link, american rugby news is a data sheet, so all that's left is two articles from djcoilrugby.com, which are mostly duplicates of each other, so really only one source. Now, this source is relatively long, but it is mostly a string of biographical facts, with little analysis. Furthermore, I think the reliability of this source could be called into question - I don't see much to suggest they do fact-checking or corrections, and the author isn't that clearly indicated. I conclude that the current sourcing is not enough for notability. PJvanMill)talk( 17:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PJ above me Spiderone 19:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results include 2 individuals bearing the same name. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 19 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Save Totovosau

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not notable under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so doesn't qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about him and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - okay, so there's this but it's not enough for a GNG pass Spiderone 22:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (copy-pasting at this point) The only source in this article that contributes at all to notability would be djcoilrugby.com, and that article (as with all of these djcoilrugby.com articles) consists of a one-sentence description of a player joining a team, and a short biography of the player. This is not enough to reach significant coverage. The source that Spiderone links to looks unreliable to me (no author name), and is also not very significant. PJvanMill)talk( 17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not much coverage, and what's there that exists is either unreliable or not independent. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Connor (rugby union)

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about O’Connor and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the American Rugby News is not a reliable, independent source, so sourcing to that does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source in this article that contributes at all to notability would be djcoilrugby.com, and that article (as with all of these djcoilrugby.com articles) consists of a one-sentence description of a player joining a team, and a short biography of the player. This is not enough to reach significant coverage. PJvanMill)talk( 17:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I completely agree with PJ above; SIGCOV is not shown here Spiderone 15:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holden Yungert

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for teams so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to me to meet WP:GNG, as at least one source is “substantial coverage”, viz. an article about Yungert and not a brief mention. Moonraker (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't believe any of the sources on the page or that I can find are 'substantial coverage', that are independent of the source/tournament. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker, as has been discussed here can you show which of the sources in the article provide enough significant coverage for it to pass WP:GNG or if there are other sources that you believe enough to allow it to pass WP:GNG can you provide them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting out very broad standards for rugby players. One source that is more than a brief mention is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no independent significant coverage there, and the level within the sport is too low. Geschichte (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. PJvanMill)talk( 16:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sourcing is insignificant in that there is nothing we can build a biography from Spiderone 22:46, 17 November 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. Per blprequest marginal notability and subject request deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Zhuravleva

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

I am the article subject and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person. I want this article to be deleted as I am not as notable as described in the article and this misrepresentation can damage my career. Ziv27123 (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no reason to not keep this article as it is fully sourced. Also, seems like a WP:COI from this user. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep at least until the nominator uses WP:OTRS to verify their identity; we have no way to know whether the nominator is who they say they are without further evidence. At present, the nomination provides no WP:DELREASON. Moreover, there is a reasonable case to be made for WP:NPROF#C1 given Scholar cites. I'm not sure how named assistant professorships should be treated for purposes of WP:NPROF#C5. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The named designations for Assistant Professorships are always temporary and they don't qualify for WP:NPROF#C5. The nominator does indicate privacy concerns as a reason for wanting the page deleted, which is a standard reason for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE requests. However, we do indeed need the nominator's identity confirmed first via a verified WP:OTRS ticket, before this nomination can be treated as a bona fide WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request. Nsk92 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete (providing source checks out). WP:NPROF#C5 would not be satisfied but WP:NPROF#C1 might, but only marginally. I do not see any single-author cited publications, so evidence of independent achievement is sparse. This is often a problem with people who work in large groups. The BLP was created by a self-confessed novice editor, who possibly may not have consulted the subject, as is often the case, and has given offence. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I'm always sorry to see articles on scientists go, but I wouldn't want Wikipedia to get in the way of a career, either. I'm sure that JimenaAstro created the page in good faith and without ill intent. It may help if Ziv27123 could provide a little more detail on how the article is misrepresentative. I'm just guessing, but based on the long author lists of the cited papers, it may be that the text of the article gives too much credit to Dr. Zhuravleva alone for work done collaboratively. If that's the case, further input on this point might be helpful for JimenaAstro going forward. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure too that JimenaAstro created the page in good faith and without ill intent. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanthippe and XOR'easter I appreciate your understanding. I like writing biographies of scientists and always try to be as truthful and precise as I can. JimenaAstro (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologise to Ziv27123 if she feels that the page I created is misrepresentative of her work, and to the Wikipedia community for the trouble. I created the page in good faith out of appreciation for Dr. Zhuravleva's work. I came across a couple of her papers during my studies and I found them remarkable. There was absolutely no ill intent on my side and I second page deletion if she wants that. JimenaAstro (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citations for first-author papers are 220, 86, 56, 49, ... enough for me (in conjunction with the highly-cited group work) for a borderline pass of WP:PROF#C1. As discussed above, named assistant professorships aren't indicative of notability. So if this were a normal AfD I would probably side for a weak keep, but I think it's borderline enough that if the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE can be verified through OTRS then we should honor it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any indication that order of authorship is significant in this field? Order is mixed in other papers. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The indication is that the authors are non-alphabetical and her name starts with a Z. Additionally, checking the 220-citation paper in Nature found that she is marked as contact author, not merely first in the list. I have seen suggestions that fields that historically have alphabetized author lists and a default assumption of equal contributions for authors (for instance mathematics and theoretical computer science) switch to a randomized name ordering but I think only the economists are actually doing that [40]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Practices of authorship order are so varied that no conclusions can be drawn form them. A junior member of the team is sometimes appointed contact author to give them administrative experience and reduce the workload of senior members. Again, no conclusions can be drawn here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete It seems like the subject is on the borderline of having sufficient notability to warrant an article. If she herself prefers to have the article deleted, then I think it makes sense to abide by her wishes.PopePompus (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as articulated above, this article already walks the knife-edge of WP:NPROF, most of the citations are directly to papers, and it seems (pending OTRS confirmation) that the subject of the article would prefer it gone. No objection here. jp×g 17:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Crew

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

This was a DJ/Producer collective with many people, a few of whom became notable in other endeavors later. But as an entity unto itself it generated no significant and reliable media notice that is necessary for notability. The article is dependent on interviews with members Terror Danjah and Bruza, and a couple of those interviews list Reckless Crew once as either guy's early project, and the other interviews do not mention the collective at all. The other sources in the article are minor database and directory listings, and most of those are actually dedicated to some of the members, not to this crew as a whole. More of the same is all that can be found in a search. Longtime leader Terror Danjah has accomplished other things and if he had a WP article, Reckless Crew could be redirected there, but he does not. So deletion is recommended. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 02:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create, 2020-08 ✗ G7

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sofitel Chicago Magnificent Mile

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

This hotel is WP:Run-of-the-mill and fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG Wikiwriter700 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't run-of-the-mill, the architecture alone shows that. The references currently are weak, but a quick search found at least a few more, both on the building and the hotel operation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a couple more references to the article. While coverage I was able to find of it clearly showed its architectural significance, but I found less coverage than I thought I would. It passes WP:GNG, but not by as much as you'd think. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 24 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TransNexus

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. My search did turn up one possibly usable source, but I'm not absolutely convinced of its reliability, and NCORP requires multiple sources to establish notability in any case. – Teratix ₵ 01:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 01:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 01:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 01:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Basically all mentions of it come from placed pieces in niche industry publications (e.g. here) and, moreover, the creator of article is an WP:SPA clearly related to the company. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence the company passes WP:NCOMPANY. Uh, so much spam these days... hmmm, I guess that's normal. Anyway, spam, nuke. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A longstanding primary-sourced article by a connected contributor, with subsequent additions by a IP and by a WP:COI WP:SPA. The 2007 article identified by the nominator describes the company's technical offering, which serves to verify but does not, I think, establish notability here. My searches are finding various routine announcement items, but these fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:44, 24 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Internet Exchange

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the original AFD, closed for No Consensus, the article hasn't been worked on or been have any references or sources added to it. A cursory look through Google does not reveal anything to show it meets WP:GNG. Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough in itself for an article but suitable for a limited partial merge to Internet in Nepal (which also needs massive cleanup). --DanielRigal (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems historically significant (thus making it highly likely that it is written about or will be written about in works on IT in Nepal) and per Wifione in the previous AFD. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources indicated in the previous AfD are reliable. I also found a few reliable sources which talk about it: [41], [42] and [43]. With those, the article is good enough to pass WP:NWEB. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with the above users that it should be kept with the fact that more sources have been found. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 06:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing "Independent Content". None of the Keep !votes above appear to have taken NCORP criteria into account - we require more than references mentioning the organization in reliable sources. The references (including those mentioned in the previous AfD) fail the NCORP criteria. Also, the vast majority of these types of organizations are listed in [List of Internet exchange points] and do not have articles. For example:
- This from Nepali Times is entirely based on an interview with Bill Woodcock who is involved in the Packet Clearing House and assisted in setting to the IEP in Nepal. There is no "Independent Content" and this reference therefore fails WP:ORGIND
- The paper Problems and Prospects of Internet in new e-Nepal (also available on sci-hub) mentions the organization once, in passing, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This article on telecomkhabar.com fails as a reliable source. The website appears to be a "portal" with no indications of any editorial oversight, no list of editors or who the "owner" is, also has a facebook page with no details and finally the article itself was posted anonymously with no attributed author. Reference fails WP:RS.

None of the references in the article or posted at the other AfD meet the criteria for establishing notability and having searched, while there is no doubt that the organization exists, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and therefore this topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the references might not confer notability, but I'd say that being the only internet exchange in an entire country militates toward notability more strongly than that; and since references have been found that seem in all respects to have established the existence of the thing, I think they ought to be included and the article left to roam cyberspace. jp×g 17:08, 28 November 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/No consensus. There is a consensus that, in general, the pageant contestors listed here should be deleted or redirected. Two of the people, Gabriela Kratochvílová and Andrea Kalousová, have also done something else (than just a pageant), an issue that has not been explicitly adressed in the AfD. The best solution therefore seems to be to close the discussion on the two of them as no consensus with no prejudice against immediately re-nominating them for deletion individually. For the remaining articles, I will close the discussion on them as redirect rather than delete, since they are potential search terms. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Kalousová

AfDs for this article:

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

Recent community discussions have held there is no consensus for automatic notability for pageant winners. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxanne Allison Baeyens – bundled, resulted in 18 articles deleted – upheld at more recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulette Samayoa. There was also a recent successful RfC [44] concerning sockfarms and beauty pageant article creations by sockfarms like this one. The RfC does not imply deletion is necessary in this case, but does indicate that scrutiny will be especially strong and this was not taken into account in the last, lightly attended, deletion debate held in 2015 (four keep !votes, one of which was by a later CU-confirmed sockpuppet). ☆ Bri (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Kalousová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Barbora Hodačová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andrea Bezděková (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Nikol Švantnerová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Gabriela Kratochvílová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eliška Bučková (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lucie Hadašová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦

🧦 = created by sockmaster/sockpuppet

Nominating additional Czech Miss contestants for same reasons, these all appear to represent WP:BLP1E. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Javidan Gurbanova

Articles for deletion/Jevon King

Articles for deletion/Nadine Stroitz

Joitza Henriquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Dina Fekadu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Cindy Nell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Betina Faurbye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Kenisha Thom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Sophie Moulds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Jázmin Dammak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Jevon King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Jaynene Jno Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Courtney Thorpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Sharr Htut Eaindra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Yéo Jennifer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Kim Seo-yeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Nadine Stroitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Zăjnagul Zharkynbaeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Yomatzy Hazlewood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦
Javidan Gurbanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 🧦

Nominating random creations of another sockfarm for same reasons. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the others, but I don't think Jevon King in particular should be deleted; she has a son with Diplo who has a lengthy WP article. If she only had a son with Diplo or only won the pageant, her article should be deleted. However, I think with these two combined, her article should stay. Unknown-Tree (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's an essay, not a guideline 2) I know that, if she didn't win the pageant, then I would've agreed with removing her article. Unknown-Tree (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, WP:Notability – which is a guideline – states it this way: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest... I'm sure you know this having followed WP:NRVE from the NOTINHERITED essay, but I'm stating it here for the others participating. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WEAK KEEP: Despite pageant winners being deleted in other articles. Generally speaking, winning a nationwide pageant, means you won several local pageants. However, this is an English language wikipedia and if you aren't able to find the local pageants in English, than maybe it doesn't reach the notability for this version of wikipedia. - 23:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Juju (talk)

Wikipedia notability is not and should not be based English-language coverage, and that's not the main issue here. It's the paucity of non-trivial RS coverage outside the pageant in any language. In many of the listed articles, being a pageant delegate is the sum total of RS coverage, one-event biographies. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

well I found numerous Czech articles on her in particular, but I cant assess the reliability of those articles, since I'm not versed in that language. - Juju (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none have the coverage beyond extremely passing coverage at the time of the beauty contest win to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect all of the Czech Miss winners. Although they have some coverage in generally reliable Czech language media such as iDNES or denik.cz [45] [46] [47] the coverage does not focus on the winners in depth, or else is just interviews / non-intellectually independent coverage which generally does not count toward GNG. So I would say the best outcome would be merging or redirecting into articles about the contest. (t · c) buidhe 00:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect all - promotional material, little to no coverage and notability outside their respective pageant(s). MER-C 19:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge all (or delete in the absence of a suitable redirect target), per WP:1E and WP:NMODEL. It seems there is hardly any content worth merging, though. PJvanMill)talk( 16:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to their respective pageant where they competed/won.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least Gabriela Kratochvílová and Andrea Kalousová, as they resurfaced in connection with something else than pageant (Kratochvílová as an anchor, Kalousová as TV show participant (in top 20 topviews at cswiki). Jklamo (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be inclined to !vote redirect for articles created by socks, but we should open separate AfDs for the rest. jp×g 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect, or Merge all (descending order of choice) with the last two options as ATD per rationale of Nom. I am not a fan of mass nominations but these BLP articles fail any notability criteria. They are sourced either improperly through the "External links" (Ceska Miss official website), one or two sources (sometimes three like cemodels.cz and globalbeauties), with a sprinkle of maybe one reliable source or primary source that DOES NOT advance any notability for encyclopedia coverage. Attempts to count winning some non-notable "Miss diaper" pageant as justification to disclaim WP:BLP1E does not work. Look at Jázmin Dammak who won Miss Universe Hungary that set up entry into Miss Universe 2008 where she placed 15th. The more than likely permanent dictionary entry just is not notable for encyclopedia inclusion. Sharr Htut Eaindra won Miss Universe Myanmar 2014 and did not place in the Miss Universe 2014 pageant. She is still shown on the article as being a sophomore in college after 6 years. Yéo Jennifer won one pageant and didn't even place in the Miss World 2014 pageant. The same results with Kim Seo-yeon. Zăjnagul Zharkynbaeva won Miss Kyrgyzstan 2014 and we are awaiting the results of the Miss Universe 2015 pageant which it seems (outdated article) she didn't win. Each of these have similar results. Even though there is no no rush fleeting news coverage at the time does not present notability. Otr500 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 novel bunyavirus outbreak

AfDs for this article:

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

Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bubonic Plague of 2020. Sources do not describe an outbreak but cases that occurred over the course of a few months. SFTS cases routinely occur in endemic areas, so this is not an unusual event. Velayinosu (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL as it's in an endemic area as stated in nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter1471 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – most of the sources that exist about this supposed outbreak are just repackaging a report from the unreliable tabloid Global Times (see WP:RSP). The few remaining sources are not enough to establish notability. And I haven't seen any sources meeting WP:MEDRS. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough proper sourcing to establish A. this really happened and B. why it is notable.TH1980 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 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 17:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of localities in England by population

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

The article is just a list of sub divisions of urban areas. It has no sources outside the primary one. I dont believe it is notable information. I think the use of the word localities to refer to them is also wrong. Eopsid (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A pointless list, except to make a WP:POINT. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The use of "localities" in the title is problematic and the list is kind of pointless. Plus, it's unreferenced anyway. There are some lists/sources out there about "population of cities in United Kingdom", but they aren't in any way similar to this from what I can tell. Not that Wikipedia articles should just be a recreation of other lists anyway though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the points raised above, especially Adamant1's point about about localities being problematic (and indeed I would say unencyclopedic). Dunarc (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Adamant1 // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, don't know what the use of this list is. Alex-h (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep localities are important and verifiable and the population of settlements is discussed by many sources. If necessary maybe it could be merged with List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Unlike the urban areas article this appears to be referring to individual BUASDs which can provide a more realistic population data for joined settlements[48]. The ONS is an independent source for these places even if it has "created" the actual terms but in any case we haven't use such terms in the title of this article anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most of these aren't localities. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading that pdf you linked it says this about BUASDs on the 2nd to last page: names in the 2011 dataset were generated using an automated process. [...] The automated process has, however, led to some changes in the way the sub-divisions are named, especially in the large conurbations and cities. Sometimes different names to those used in 2001 have been assigned, in other cases the same name has been used but for a slightly different area than in 2001. Therefore, caution is needed when comparing statistics for built-up areas sub-divisions over time.

This contradicts with you saying they provide a more realistic population for joined settlements. They are auto generated and inconsistent compared to the previous census. There is no "proper" definition for settlements in the UK. And if there was BUASDs definitely arent it. Eopsid (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does appear urban sub-divisions (as a synonym for locality) were indeed in use as an English census device through to 2001, and BUASDs created in 2011. Therefore, this list is correct - it captures the last year of a specific definition for a sub-built-up area, which was changed. There's a good argument this should be merged somewhere, since it's now historical, but it's in line with the population tables we have on the site - there's also a good argument it should be renamed to urban sub-divisions (2001), or possibly add other historical years from prior censuses as well to the table. It probably also needs to be clarified a bit given the confusion with some of the delete !voters so far along with the few minutes spent researching it on my end. SportingFlyer T·C 01:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We arent debating whether the list is correct or not but whether its notable. What population tables that we have on the site? Eopsid (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Populations of settlements are likely to be notable, while its true that many such lists are defined by administrative boundaries rather than settlement boundaries, a list of large settlements is still IOM suitable even if the definition changes occasionally (which the list can then be updated or kept as historical as is is) instead of deleting it. Yes the criteria may not be perfect but it still seems like its suitable enough for a list. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they aren't settlements! Thats the problem. They are simply subdivisions of urban areas they aren't settlements. The source doesnt even say they are. Eopsid (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here - the criteria for inclusion are clearly defined here as urban sub-divisions. The fact we're using different terms for populated places just adds to the confusion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are London boroughs which aren't settlements, maybe they should be removed or put in italic text? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:OR Eopsid (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If "settlement" is a census-defined definition, that wouldn't be WP:OR. But I'm still not sure why "settlement" is being thrown around here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This previous discussion might be useful: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population Eopsid (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - that list appears to have been a WP:OR mishmash of statistics, while this is based on data. They are two different lists. SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm with the deletes above. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 08:31, 17 November 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) — Amkgp 💬 15:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell gorge suicides

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

Not notable enough to warrant an entire article (violates WP:EVENT, WP:SENSATIONAL). This is trivial and non-encyclopedic information. If Cornell "does not have an above-average suicide rate", then what is the justification for the article, except to promote sensationalism? Kzirkel (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Kzirkel (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kzirkel (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered substantially in reliable sources such as USA Today (cited in article) and other sources not cited. Including also the New York Times and the Syracuse Post-Standard, in first page of results of this google news search. AFD nominator notes apparent contradiction or irony in article, the _assertion_ (not necessarily a true fact) that Cornell does not have an above-average suicide rate, but I frankly don't really believe that. That actually sounds like a kind of assertion that Cornell public relations / marketing department would try to make. Deletion nominator could tag the article and/or raise their conundrum at the Talk page. No indication that searching for sources before nominating for deletion was done (is the relevant AFD complaint wp:BEFORE or what?). Simply, Cornell is in a dramatic setting with multiple bridges over gorges, and perhaps cliffs overlooking gorges, where suicides can and have occurred. It is or was akin to a university with tall buildings where students, including some stressed-out ones, had inappropriate, tragic free access to rooftops to jump from. It is akin to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, well-known for being a place where suicides have happened, see Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge. This would be in any list of "top 10 places for suicides in the United States" or in the northeast, I would bet, or at least in top areas associated with universities in the U.S. Hmm, such lists exist, such as Wikipedia's List of suicide sites (which does not mention it). There are multiple other grim lists, e.g. also "10 Most Infamous Suicide Spots" (a blog?) which lists Golden Gate Bridge at #2 of 10 places world-wide. Anyhow, it is a thing. There exists general coverage of suicides there, and/or the scary atmosphere, and detailed news coverage of development of nets, etc. to reduce suicides at Cornell, so "Keep". Also note this single article serves instead of multiple shorter articles about individual suicides or individual years there. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a subject that has occured on three occasions, and has been covered for decades. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doncram. Elms^super 06:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-documented, if creepy, phenomenon. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 19 November 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. It's snowing! Geschichte (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Francis (peace activist)

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

A user submitted an edit request but the request and the article lacked reliable sources. I tried to find some, but my search produced two short reviews for her book [49] [50] and no biographical or professional profiles in reliable sources. This fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as she has not received significant coverage. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Z1720 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added to the article ten published reviews, including at least two for three of her books (also correcting the title of one, which may have made it more difficult to find its reviews). I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is another reference - but I have forgotten how to enter things correctly:

The Friend (Quaker magazine) 1/10/2015 pp15-17 Interview of Diana Francis by Ian Kirk-Smith following her delivery of the Swarthmore lecture: Faith, Power and Peace. Thanks for your contribution, David Eppstein.Vernon White ^{. . . Talk}

Keep As per above passes WP:AUTHOR. Sliekid (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews cited in the article (Thanks David Eppstein!) demonstrate Francis meets WP:NAUTHOR (criteria 3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsmachado (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to pass WP:AUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; also, everybody claims to be a "peace activist" but not everyone has given a Swarthmore Lecture. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved with referencing to coverage in multiple reliable sources such as secondary independent reviews so WP:NAUTHOR is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khimik Sports Complex

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

No indication of notability, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Searches turned up virtually zero coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is some element of confusion in the article: it mixed up Khimik Sports Complex (formerly of Khimvolokno factory) and Tekstylnyk Stadium (formerly of Cheksyl factory) which are 1 km away. The stadium hosted once top amateur team of Ukraine, uk:Домобудівник (Чернігів), some 1990s sources might be available. I am not sure this stadium is that notable but it attracted some moderate interest in the past — NickK (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no indication of notability; the sources are basically just yellow pages and some kind of company profile. PJvanMill)talk( 16:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL bare business and social media listings. No indication that this would qualify under WP:NCORP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:41, 24 November 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] ttps://in.news.yahoo.com/diligent-honors-groundbreaking-governance-leaders-150000623.html

[2] ttps://info.diligent.com/modern-leaders-2020/

[1]

[2]