Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 22	November 24 >

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. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel David

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

Non-notable Journalist. Fails WP:GNG. Seems more like an influencer (also non-notable) on a quick search. Palmsandbeaches (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see she writes for the Guardian Rachel David but couldn't locate anything that indicates coverage per WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks coverage in reliable sources. I found this interview where she talked about her business, but that's it. PK T(alk) 13:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable journalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Man of God (film)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:UNSOURCED and WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to no sources and no notability established. Oaktree b (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything to establish where this film was independently notable of its creator. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is time for Wikipedia to stop being an IMBd mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing on newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs more RS to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 21:33, 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 merge to Supergirl. There is a strong consensus that this topic should be covered at the main article of the character. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative versions of Supergirl

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

Overly in-depth plot content fork that fails WP:NOTPLOT and fails to establish its own notability independent of the main article per WP:GNG. Supergirl (disambiguation) exists to cover characters that have their own articles. There's no need to list every individual minor variance on a general encyclopedia, and there is no reason that this cannot be properly summarized as it should per WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Supergirl That however applies only to the small referenced part of the article, the unreferenced part should not be merged per WP:V. Then this can be deleted, no need for a redirect, the name is not likely to be searchable, as the concept has zero stand-alone notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourced material to the Supergirl article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - As the nominator has been informed before, "article doesn't establish notability" and "there's too much plot" are not legitimate reasons for deletion. I would encourage them to better understand deletion criteria. As for this supposedly not being notable, there has never been one particular Supergirl. The character has been reworked many times, reimagined, retconned into separate characters, and the original Supergirl wasn't even the version we know today. The likes of Supergirl (Kara Zor-El), Power Girl, Supergirl (Matrix), and Supergirl (Linda Danvers) are not just generic alternate versions, they were all the primary version of the character at one point or another (mostly because DC didn't know what to do with her). This is integral to the character's history and the fact that so many of them have articles of their own is further evidence that this article (which happens to be a hub article) is notable. It's impossible to find a source discussing Supergirl's history that doesn't also go into heavy detail and commentary about the alternate versions.

https://www.cbr.com/supergirl-death-of-superman-forgotten-hero/

https://www.tor.com/2015/10/23/supergirl-a-brief-history-of-the-last-daughter-of-krypton/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Supergirl

https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/supergirl-the-history-of-the-newest-dc-tv-star/

https://www.polygon.com/comics/2016/11/30/13765684/supergirl-history-power-girl\

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a595503/supergirl-comic-book-origins-and-shots-at-screen-stardom/

https://www.cbr.com/every-supergirl-ranked/

https://comicbook.com/news/just-how-many-supergirls-are-there-/

https://nerdist.com/article/supergirl-live-action-film-which-version/

https://screenrant.com/dc-supergirl-first-version-comics/

I would also encourage the nominator to stop using "alternate versions" as an excuse to nominate articles, and to stop looking for every minor excuse to nominate an article. Fiction is covered on Wikipedia, so subjective declarations of unimportance ("There's no need to list every individual minor variance on a general encyclopedia (even if it passes GNG apparently)") don't matter. A current revision of an article being poorly written, mostly plot, or even poorly sourced in itself is not a reason to delete. This clearly passes WP:LISTN. Dark knight 2149 06:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All these major alternate versions also have their own articles and can contain their own publication history. This article is a list of minor appearances with zero need to exist. The random mishmash of links you've posted does nothing other than affirm that the major individual versions having articles makes sense. If there's some need to have a "History of Supergirl" separate article for some reason, this article is not that and will never be that article. This is not a matter of cleanup or anything of the like. This is just a conceptually flawed article expanding on plot that needs to be summarized in the main article(s). The disambiguation page otherwise is suitable for those with actual articles. TTN (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the main article, your argument makes even less sense because it already covers all the major versions, so there is no particular reason to even mention them in this article. That means any source mentioning them is useless to whatever point you're trying to make. TTN (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main character articles and re-treads most of the same ground, with no sources that really distinguish this as a separately notable topic. I would also support deletion as this is completely cited to primary sources, or trivial mentions that really refer to the notable fiction more than the non-notable character. But WP:ATD are always welcome when the consensus is pointing that way. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Supergirl article - yet another minor content article about superheroes - Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This article breaks NOTPLOT and is massive CRUFT. Wikipedia does not - and should not - feature every last minute detail of fictional universes and has safeguards against it for a reason doktorb _words^deeds 13:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of topics that cover the same subject matter, and this merely does the same thing without separately meeting the WP:GNG or WP:NOT#PLOT. Jontesta (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a content fork. DarkKnight is correct in his assessment, but I believe his argument makes a strong case for merging. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:56, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Ahmed Khan

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

Fails WP:GNG. I don't find any significant coverage about this subject other than maybe this Catch News piece, but this doesn't feel like a legit article, it feels more like a press release that they published. Searching for his full name (with or without middle name) plus titles of things he's been in result in some passing mentions like here. Here's a TOI article that says he was fired from a show for not playing the role well. I found this article, which has some detail, but Urban Asian isn't a reliable source as far as I know, and the 14 October 2017 publication date coincides exactly with the creation of the article, which leads me to believe that it is a PR piece that was used to boost his social media presence, with Wikipedia being used for that purpose. Article creator MediaTribe was also indeffed by a CU, so this is almost certainly a UPE article. I don't feel that notability has been properly established in the article, or that it could be with the sources I've found. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Catch News piece is way too brief to be acceptable on its own, anyway. As things stand, the sources do not establish notability and this clearly fails WP:BASIC. Spiderone 10:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of characters in The Railway Series. I'm suggesting y'all discuss or try to merge whatever information you think is merge-worthy. Doesn't have to be the article I suggested here. Then you can just redirect when you're done. Thanks everyone....this train has left the station. Missvain (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry the Green Engine

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

An article about a single fictional locomotive within the world of Thomas the Tank Engine. The article was created in 2004, since when it has remained without proper sources. It is written in a decidedly inappropriate tone, much of it from a fan perspective. It confuses real-world and fictional perspectives, mixes two different versions of the same character - one from the books, one from the related but separate TV series - leaving the text impossibly confused. Worse, after applying WP:BEFORE research, the subject of this article is not covered in multiple reliable, published sources, and is not notable. A proposal was made to merge the salvageable contents into List of characters in The Railway Series, but this was rejected on the talk page. I don't believe there is a justification for keeping this as a separate article on Wikipedia Laplorfill (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal that was made to merge this information into List of characters in The Railway Series was rejected by only one user. This article contains two sets of information. Half the article could and should be moved to the Henry section of List of characters in The Railway Series. The other half should go to List of Thomas & Friends characters. Unfortunately that article is simply a bare list of names.

I oppose deletion on two grounds

Notability. Whilst only appealing to a small audience there is serious interest as shown by the following web site https://ttte.fandom.com/wiki/Henry_the_Green_Engine
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is a place for minority interest articles.

One of the objections to the article was the lack of citations. This has been partially addressed. OrewaTel (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability like the rest of the characters from the series, through this one at least attempts to discuss some controversies related to two episodes the character appears in. However, the controversies are related to the episodes and not really to this character, so if sources are found (one of the sections has no sources), the odds are they won't be of much help, but do ping me if you think otherwise. The best I can see here for salvaging is that if said sources are found, maybe the mentioned episodes could get stand-alone articles? Regarding the proposed merge, there is little to merge as most of the article is still unreferenced plot summary aka WP:FANCRUFT, through I have no major objections to a merger if anyone wants to carry it out (just don't dump irrelevant info in a list). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article dates back to 2004, 2 years before Wikipedia started to develop notability guidelines for fictional things and back when Wikipedia was drowning in fancruft. We have since realized that Wikipedia needs to require things to be notable, which Henry is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above analysis. Unless more sources are presented, this fails WP:GNG. I'd recommend that if the Fandom is insufficient to ask an admin to temporarily restore any deleted page history so it can be transwiki'd. TTN (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Surprised though that there are no reliable sources available since Henry is a main character. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can’t believe the Thomas deletionists are still at it. Henry is notorious for being bricked up in the tunnel and that is alone he is part of popular culture not to mention the several other plot lines that he was notable for. Special Coal and Henry’s Forest (in which a tv documentary featured a complaint from Rev Awdry himself) are easily notable. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if possible. There is some information here to preserve. Some of it is about the story that Henry appears in and not on topic. But the Washington Post article does cover some interesting facts about Henry. I agree this isn't enough to establish notability but it is worth WP:PRESERVING. Archrogue (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Archrogue. Notoability is not inherited, but preservation of sources and information are always welcome. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poulomi Saha

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Spyder212 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could use better sources for the article, twitter and two newspapers isn't pushing it over the top. Not much from what I can see to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk)
Delete: per nom. Every face that appears on television does not automatically warrant a wiki page. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This TV anchor does not have any remarkable achievement so far that merits a Wikipedia article. No detailed coverage of the person found. Walrus Ji (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 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. Sandstein 21:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional United States marshals

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vice presidents of the United States, if fictional vice presidents is not a valid list topic then US marshals are surely not. There is not even any assertion of the US marshals being notable characters within the work they appeared in. I can't for the life of me see the value of this list. Geschichte (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few of these characters have notability in the movies they play. Atleast not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. This seems like one of those articles about un-notable topics that nobody gets around to removing.Kieran207 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something like "law officers in fiction" might be notable but a list of fictional US marshals is certainly a trivial list. Rhino131 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The United States Marshals Service played a key role, especially in the Old West, and accordingly has played a significant role in films and novels. Probably second only to the FBI in Hollywood history. There may well be a need to trim the list to significant characters, but characters such as Marshal Matt Dillon and Dennis Weaver from Gunsmoke, Rooster Cogburn from True Grit, Will Kane in High Noon, Marshal Sam Gerard in The Fugitive films and TV series, Clint Eastwood's character in Hang 'Em High, Dennis Weaver's character in McCloud, Artemus Gordon from The Wild Wild West, and John Wayne in Cahill U.S. Marshal are among the most significant and memorable characters ever developed in the U.S. Marshals genre. Good overviews of U.S. marshals in fiction can be found here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the names from this list are not notable. Fails WP:LISTN. - Mukt (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The second source named by Cbl62 would be useful to write about United States marshals in Western film if it does indeed significantly cover that topic, but it cannot support this indiscriminate list. Not sure if the first is an RS. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While being unsourced is not always a problem, the fact that we see no sourcing that considers these as a group is telling. I also question whether all fiction has thought through the issues involved enough for it to always be clear if a character is a US marshal, or a sherrif or sherriff's deputy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:IINFO as the concept is vague in fiction and fundamentally unverifiable, as opposed to real-life U.S Marshalls which can be verified. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only like five of the listed characters here have articles.★Trekker (talk) 19:33, 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 delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdi Zurqani

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

A very obvious WP:NPROF failure. His PhD degree is one year old, and under these circumstances notability would require a hell of a lot of that "internationally acclaimed work" that the stub claims but does not demonstrate. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, citations not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and no other case for notability is apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per all of the above comments. Certainly WP:TOOSOON yet for satisfying WP:PROF. The article's creator blanked the page after it had been listed for AfD[1] (I reverted the blanking), possibly indicating their agreement that the article should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete different fields require different amounts of time to become notable, for academics it requires a lot of work and time. For example Jay Buckley I had as a professor at BYU back in the fall of 2014 shortly before his book William Clark: Indian Diplomat came out. I have considered creating an article on professor Buckley, even looked into it, but I was never quite convinced he passed notability. The same is true of Brian Q. Cannon another professor I had the same semester. It takes a lot of research work and publications for an academic to meet notability guidelines, or in a few cases one publication that has a truly field altering impact, I see neither for Zurqani.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it may be WP:TOOSOON Spudlace (talk) 06:25, 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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Carpenter (Internet engineer)

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

This individual does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Their Wikipedia page is largely self-written and does not cite appropriate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdeline (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the evident pass of WP:PROF#C1, his leadership of various internet organizations gives him a case for #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article easily passes WP:PROF. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This passes WP:PROF Spudlace (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Prof#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:45, 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natan Pereira

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

Article about footballer who has only played semi-professionally except for a 36-minute cameo in the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A. There is no online Portuguese-language coverage of this footballer other than database entries and transfer announcements (and nothing at all which would be in-depth coverage), and there is nothing indicating what he might have done since 2011. Although having played in a few minutes in a fully-pro league match 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) 19:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and clear recent AFD consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively. Giant Snowman 22:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - clearly fails GNG Spiderone 09:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 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. Missvain (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abayob: Face the Devil Inside

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No significant coverage or anything. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reviews in reliable sources (I do not count a tweet that then links to someone's blog as a review here) Spiderone 10:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - short films are run of the mill and as in this case lack significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Iscaro

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

Contested PROD (no reason given for dePRODing), does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions in coverage that is mainly WP:PRIMARY and not enough to be significant coverage to qualify for WP:GNG, much the same as previous MLR listings such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zinzan Elan-Puttick and many others. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet NRU or GNG; coverage is almost entirely from primary sources and nothing better found in a search Spiderone 21:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rugby player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the coverage is independent or reliable. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 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 redirect to Jordan Peterson#Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (2021). For now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life

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

This stub is a plug for a forthcoming book, WP:PROMO, shouldn't be here, it's advertising. Acousmana (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Acousmana (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now has six sources, 3 of them are about the book directly. I belive it now meets WP:NBOOK. J.Turner99 (talk) 08:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is enough to say, given this is a sequal to a book that was so popular. Also Peterson has made a video talking about the contents of the book and the new rules in it. This video (at the time of writing) has over 250,000 views. He also read part of the introduction in this video. Because of this, I feel there is plenty to write about. We already know some of the contents of the book. As for the book not meeting WP:NBOOK, it feel does. It will meetcriteria 3 very soon and I would also argue 5. J.Turner99 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is to a publication listed as "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP. Sources from Peterson himself don't count towards notability, because they are not independent. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mention the YouTube video to suggest that there is plenty to write about. As far as I know, I think it is OK to keep a generally unreliable source in the article until you can find a new one. I have changed the spurce now anyway. But I would suggest instead of just removing the source, I would ask you to please consider looking for a replacement, in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Turner99 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now extended the article to point where I feel it warrants its existance. A book does not have to be released for an article to made about it. Barrck Obama's New Book had a wiki article about it months before it was released. We already know the introduction and what the book is about. I have already put information regarding the background and there is enough information to add Summary/Content and perhaps Publication, because Peterson has outlined what formats the book will be available in and where it will be sold. J.Turner99 (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, I think it is OK to keep a generally unreliable source in the article until you can find a new one. It can be acceptable to keep a mediocre source — that's why we have the {{betterfact}} template — but it's not a good idea to keep an unreliable one. Wikipedia depends upon reliable sourcing in order to be viable. Regarding your comparison, Barack Obama was leader of the free world for eight years. That's going to make a difference for how much pre-publication attention a book will get. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBOOK on account of not existing yet. It's not our job to make predictions; even if the book is scheduled to be published, we can't say in advance whether it's guaranteed to deserve a stand-alone article. It's always possible that an author's time has passed, that what was once shocking has become passé. We might discover, after a book's publication, that only the die-hard fans really cared, and thus that there's so little to say about it that we should just give it a paragraph in the author's biography. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jordan Peterson#Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life (2021) for the time being. Currently, this article has only two sentences of prose and no references. Once reviews, sales figures, etc. start appearing, it's likely that it will be possible to make a proper article about this book, but at this point there's not enough to say to warrant a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now - Sources are inevitable, but until then an article is premature. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per XOR'easter. Autarch (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. It's rare that media will be notable prior to its official release, especially books. Even books by extremely mainstream authors such as Stephen King have trouble passing NBOOK prior to their release, as most of the coverage is just an announcement that the book will release on X day. It looks like what's out there are just announcements that the book will release, which isn't enough for a standalone article at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - fails WP:NBOOK. This article was made way too early. Wait for the book and reviews of it to come out. There is no need to rush this. The book will inevitably meet criteria #1 per WP:BKCRIT, but until then wait to make a standalone article. Redirect to the section on Peterson's article and build content there for now. Οἶδα (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as above, too soon. Wait until it's published.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 02:20, 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. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musaddam Idriss Musa

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

Fails Notablity. Sturdyankit (chat) 17:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With one weak-looking exception the sources provided are all dead links or links to his own work. No evidence of multiple RIS. Mccapra (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked into this more closely because the nomination and arguments so far are a variation of WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Dead links are also not a reason for deletion, and I was able to access them via the Wayback Machine. He has won several Nigerian writers awards. Unfortunately we don't have any articles on Nigerian literature in general or on any of the literature of the languages spoken there. It is impossible for me to tell if any of these awards should be considered significant. That said, the only one of these that I can establish WP:V for is a third place prize, which doesn't seem to convey notability. All the sources in the article are written by the topic, or are a list, or are a casual mention. I think this topic fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, but would like to be proven wrong by someone who has better access to Nigerian sources than myself. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think from the sources in the article and those presented here that there is just about enough for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Maciejewski

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

PROD removed. Fails WP:GNG and N:FOOTBALL (having never played in a fully professional league or for a senior international team). Dougal18 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about passes GNG albeit not for her football career [2] [3] [4] [5] Spiderone 16:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately there's not quite enough out there to write an article on her sports career, and I don't think her TV competition career is notable (Ninja warrior contestants are typically not notable.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - seems to pass GNG for the reasons given by Spiderone. The football career in my view just brings her over the line for notability. Deus et lex (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:50, 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) 14:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not entirely convinced by the claims to GNG, I'm not very familiar with the csources so difficult to judge how significant htis coverage is. Disagree that a redirect is a useful outcome here - to what would this person be redirected to? However, no clear consensus to delete or keep so worth keeping open to discuss the sources noted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found sources relating to her football career in Gale (originally written in The Canberra Times) [6][7][8][9] This, combined with the sources posted by Spiderone (excluding the now.nine source, as Channel 9 broadcasts American Ninja Warrior so they are not independent,) causes this person to have enough notability to pass WP:GNG. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as per the soures found by Z1720 I have upgraded my !vote above to Keep. Deus et lex (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spiderone and Z1720.Passes WP:GNG though it fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 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 delete. Geschichte (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yonnyboii

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

Fails Notablity, seems promotional or advertising. Sturdyankit (chat) 17:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article's shamelessly promotional tone had me expecting the worst, but he gets a little closer to notability than I expected. He has some media mentions in Malaysia, but they are clearly softball interviews arranged as publicity exercises, and the Sun Daily is a free tabloid-style paper that is not reliable for purposes of the notability of people it helps promote. Otherwise the article is dependent on sources that are actually about his collaborators, or primary sources consisting of his own streaming and social media entries. Charitably it is too soon for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because this article is entirely a promotional and advertising rather than encyclopedia. I suspect this was created by a user who have close connection with the subject. Hope this can locked to prevent it from recreated.–Fandi89 (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe notably one day but for now WP:TOOSOON Spudlace (talk) 06:29, 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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Helnwein

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. All press mentions appear to be inherited from her father Gottfried Helnwein. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the problem here is that the article uses poor sources to fluff up her notability. However there are decent sources available (e.g. Google news search: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), and the article can be trimmed and updated with the new sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk)
Keep I'm in agreement with ThatMontrealIP that more RS exist that are substantial coverage. Also, I don't believe that Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED applies here. Her father is often mentioned in passing but isn't the subject of the article. Theredproject (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by ThatMontrealIP clearly show that RS exist in sufficient supply to meet GNG (per WP:NEXIST State of sourcing in the article itself doesn't matter in terms of delete/keep as long as sources exist). In terms of WP:INHERIT, I think its safe to say there are enough sources that mention the father briefly only insofar as it would be bad journalism to not say 'this artist has a father who is also an artist and is relatively famous'. Samsmachado (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources found by ThatMontrealIP that show significant coverage in reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by ThatMontrealIP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:20, 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. MER-C 18:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Khan (actor)

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

Not a notable actor having only portrayed small roles. Most of the sources cited do not even mention the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd say move to draft, but I already moved it to Draft:Zeeshan Khan (actor). Article creator Aleyamma38 recreated it in live space after it was moved to draft. I deleted that live space version, assuming that this new user did that by mistake. However with this second recreation in live space, along with their attempt to have the draft deleted, it looks like they're on a warpath to force this article into live space despite what other experienced editors suggest. So, this is starting to feel like agenda-driven editing. Searching Google for "Zeeshan Khan" "Kuch Toh Hai Tere Mere Darmiyaan", I get zero hits. "Zeeshan Khan" "Parvarrish" gets zero substantive hits. "Zeeshan Khan" "Kumkum Bhagya" provides a number of fluffy PR-themed hits, none of which constitute the significant coverage aspect of our WP:GNG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: it looks like they're on a warpath to force this article into live space despite what other experienced editors suggest. So, this is starting to feel like agenda-driven editing

Not at all Sir, but rather you seem to be on an agenda-driven editing to delete this article by wrongly claiming that wikipedia is a neutral platform!

However, I respect your suggestions as you are an experienced editor and I will give my opinions here, though I first thought that the discussion is happening in the talk page.

I have no issues if the final decision is that the article should be deleted as being a new editor, I do not want to go against the rules and norms put by the administrators here.

I will put my reasons for not deleting this page but I leave the choice to the administrators.

Thank you--Aleyamma38 (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this Wikipedia article

I agree that this actor has not done many shows and even in the shows which he got to do, he only had Recurring/Supporting roles.

But, is it the no of shows or the type of roles of an Actor which determine the creation of their articles in Wikipedia?

Then how will be the motto of Wikipedia the free encyclopedia which has a NEUTRALITY IN IT'S ARTICLES be fulfilled?

Here, I'm not talking as a FAN but just a COMMON WIKIPEDIAN EDITOR, who had carefully studied each and every wikipedia guidelines for creating a biography of an individual before creating both Zeeshan Khan and Aparna Mishra; And I know not every 'struggling-actor can have a wikipedia article but, if I am not wrong...

An Actor must have atleast done 3 shows.

He/She should have been working for atleast 5 years or more.

There should be proper referencing of him/her as An Actor.

The references should be reliable resources such Pinkvilla, Times of India, Tribune, Indian Express, Bollywoodlife etc; Tellychakkar, IVMBuzz, Bookmyshow, Filmibeat and certain other websites are considered unreliable resources.

And I guess the article Zeeshan Khan follows all of the guidelines mentioned above!

I would also like to mention that the articles Zeeshan Khan (actor born in 1989), Abrar Qazi have very poor referencing (including to the fact that the number of references are only around 3-4). Next, the article of Mugdha Chaphekar has used unreliable resources and also abused the Wikipedia guidelines by claiming the Image file to be an own work, plus the Filmography section is very badly edited.

Yes, Zeeshan Khan has never been in lead roles like Abrar Qazi and Mugdha Chaphekar, but is it neutral to have wikipedia articles of Zeeshan Khan (actor born in 1989), Abrar Qazi, Mugdha Chaphekar and many other articles which I have come across in Wikipedia with very bad editing and referencing, while delete an article of Zeeshan Khan all because he has done only supporting and recurring roles.

Ethically, in a normal world we try to Respect, every Profession for whatever each individual does, because there is a mutual relation of every profession with each other.

In the same way, in the field of Acting, every actor should be RESPECTED, no matter whatever role he/she does because a show or film doesn't run only with the lead actors.

So, when wikipedia has this motto of being a NEUTRAL PLATFORM, it would be UNFAIR to delete this article all because the actor has never got lead roles.

@Cyphoidbomb: Searching Google for "Zeeshan Khan" "Kuch Toh Hai Tere Mere Darmiyaan", I get zero hits. "Zeeshan Khan" "Parvarrish" gets zero substantive hits. "Zeeshan Khan" "Kumkum Bhagya" provides a number of fluffy PR-themed hits, none of which constitute the significant coverage aspect of our WP:GNG

And being only given a supporting, recurring role in every show adds to the fact, why there are very few articles mentioning the actor.

However, I request that, atleast Wikipedia can follow the Rule of Neutrality and not JUDGE LIKE OTHER MEDIA!

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree delete the page as he is not a notable celebrity compared to Hina Khan Arjun Bijlani Sanaya Irani and Pearl V Puri. And Aleyamma38 Pinkvilla is not a reliable source stop lying and Abrar and Mughda are more popular than Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:C81B:CFAC:10A2:2318 (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:C81B:CFAC:10A2:2318 and 2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:C81B:CFAC:10A2:2318: Pinkvilla is not a reliable source stop lying and Abrar and Mughda are more popular than Khan

I agree with your second statement that the actor is not a celebrity and I already mentioned it in my reasons earlier. But your second statement Pinkvilla is not a reliable source, makes you a liar. If you have doubts, please ask the administrators here, as the articles of Pinkvilla are one among the most used in almost all Hindi Television Series as a reliable resource.

By the way, you need not put up requests on my talk page not to delete Mugdha Chaphekar, if you really want to know which are the REAL UNREALIABLE REFERENCES in Wikipedia then the editors of Mugdha Chaphekar article have used them in their references. Please do check it up once. Thank you

--Aleyamma38 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Pinkvilla is not considered a reliable source by the Wikipedia community, as it is a gossip site. Neither is Bollywoodlife, neither is Tellychakkar, neither is Bookmyshow, neither is Filmibeat, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: Thank you for that confirmation sir, because if you don't mind and also as I guess your watchlist comes under the articles related to article Kumkum Bhagya, you should check the article of Mugdha Chaphekar at least for once Sir, because that article has 3 references out of ten, one from PINKVILLA, INDIAFORUMS and IVMBUZZ, now aren't all these unreliable? Plus, the filmography section has almost no references and badly edited with no mention of the Year of the Show. Please do check once, even if it doesn't come in your watchlist Sir. Thank you--Aleyamma38 (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleyamma38: First, do you think you can tone down the obnoxious boldface? Second, I said very clearly on my talk page "if you find content that is problematic for one reason or another, you are free to fix those issues." I'm a volunteer just like anybody and you don't get to dictate my workload or where I focus my attention. Note also that this is a discussion about the suitability of the Zeeshan Khan (actor) article, not about other articles at Wikipedia. Any commentary about these other articles is off-topic and non-constructive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: First, do you think you can tone down the obnoxious boldface? Not at all Sir, but I guess your are thinking like that!

Second, I said very clearly on my talk page "if you find content that is problematic for one reason or another, you are free to fix those issues. No thanks Sir, If I volunteer to fix all the issues then it will take my whole life! I'm a volunteer just like anybody and you don't get to dictate my workload or where I focus my attention. Sorry Sir I did not know that the major work of the wikipedia administrators is to block the new users and delete their articles, rather than fixing the existing issues. Will never ask any Wikipedia admin to fix anything! again. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Doesn't fulfill NACTOR as of now. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- After having several discussions, I take back my request, please delete this article Zeeshan Khan --Aleyamma38 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, several minor and supporting roles, but nothing significant. Sources have passing mentions, not the in-depth coverage that could support meeting WP:GNG. Article creator needs to understand that Wikipedia isn't a collection of every trivial detail, and nothing hostile is intended or meant by a deletion discussion, just that there are concerns that the subject isn't notable right now. Ravensfire (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above - we all agree that this fails NACTOR and GNG Spiderone 10:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I already deleted the page per speedy criteria G5 and G11 (created by a sock of Hamaze01; unambiguously promotional) as well as the numerous copies in draft space that had not yet been deleted. However, the unanimous (excepting the sockpuppet) sentiment of this discussion is that the topic is not suitable for the encyclopedia, hence this is a close per WP:SNOW. Recreations of this page should be deleted per WP:G4. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gloss Media

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

completely and utterly non-notbale site sourced entirely to blackhat SEO sites (paid for publications), press releases and business listings. Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This comment and request for deletion is blatantly incorrect. Did you even review the references? If you did, you will have seen that there are references from Vogue, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, dlisted, The Guardian, etc, etc. I have reviewed your other contributions and it appears that you like to throw around the "not notable site sourced by blackhat seo sites" comment quite regularly without actually reading the article and references. This is not helpful to the wikipedia community at all. What's more, I tried to have a conversation about this on your talk page and you ignored me. Alas, I feel that this article should not be deleted. The subject is notable and the references are properly sourced PiratePuppy (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Finance is a press release, bloomberg is a listing, Vogue is a single passing mention and the rest are literally paid for. Perhaps you should read WP:PAID. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not looking at all the articles. dlisted, flying geze, viral cola, etc, are definitely not paid for sites. Dlisted is one of the largest celebrity magazines in the celebrity market. Also, how can you not say the subject is notable? Given they just worked with the Rock, that seems pretty notable? Anyway, I tried to work this out with you on your talk page as previously noted and you failed to engage with me, so I guess we need an impartial third party to review this article and decide for themselves. I'm sorry we weren't able to come to an understanding between the both of us :( PiratePuppy (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking in circles. None of those are WP:RS. This is an obviously promotional, non-notable and likely paid for piece that has fabricated sources with no basis in reality. Praxidicae (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and your opinions of my rebuttable, but again I disagree. I am not talking in circles. I tried to communicate with you on your talk page about this but you would not engage. I feel you have lost objectivity, but let's see what an independent, third party reviewer thinks when they have reviewed the article and all references in totality. PiratePuppy (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Want to explain where you got the Alexa numbers from, that you used as a source, despite the source itself not even being remotely related to Gloss Media? In fact, Alexa shows it ranking somewhere in the high millions, but you decided to fabricate it by linking to WorldStarHipHop. Care to explain? Praxidicae (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same article? The alexa numbers were in a previous draft which I removed quite a while ago (well before your above comment) as I noticed it was an error. There was no "fabrication". But in using this terminology, you are again using language which is clearly non objective. I am happy to defer to another independent, arms length reviewer to read the entire article and references. Thanks PiratePuppy (talk)

Too late for another reviewer, you ignored the declines and past reviews, so now it's at AFD. I will not be rescinding it. And the idea that you didn't include it is laughable - you included a source that is blatantly false (bigtimedaily) and an unsupported statement that they rank 235th in page views with 2.5 billion a month, a blatant lie. Or are you saying you did not type this into the draft? You can easily tell that this is untrue by looking at Alexa. Praxidicae (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm not sure why you are always so mad. Editing wikipedia is supposed to be fun and informative. We are supposed to learn and support each other. You are the opposite of these things. You are not warm and inviting, and looking at your own talk page, it is clear that you are generally and consistently confrontational. It is sad that you feel that you need to act this way. Nobody was lying or fabricating anything, I simply put in an incorrect url. The balance of the article was correct with fully notable references. But you continue with whatever conspiracy theories make you happy. Have a nice day PiratePuppy (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this frippery per nom. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 18:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. This article has already been created twice by sockpuppets under the title Gloss (media), and has been deleted both times. The sourcing in the article is entirely junk - Press releases, Social media, User submitted content and passing mentions. The high quality sources in the article (bbc, the guardian) do not mention Gloss media at all, not even a credit to confirm that they were the source of the video as claimed. This article would probably qualify for speedy deletion (A7, G11) 192.76.8.81 (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it would also qualify for G5 [10]. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are trivial mentions, press release churnalism, or apparent native advertising. - MrOllie (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best sources don't mention Gloss and are therefore worthless. Some are passing mentions. Some are promotional baloney about raising a couple million dollars, which is chump change. Some sources are the obvious result of press releases and promotionalism. Then there are references to Instagram - how absurd! There is not a single reference to a high quality independent source devoting significant coverage to Gloss as a business venture. Fails WP:NCORP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 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. Missvain (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Marriott

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance per WP:NBUILD. Sources in the article are four database entries, one government database listing for "Hotel and Motel Fire Safety Act National Master List", and a brief two sentence mention on the designer's website. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. This is a normal hotel, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 15:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps too soon, it might one day be recognized as a late 20th Century modern architectural marvel. Otherwise just a concrete hotel from the 70's. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - arguably, as once the tallest building in a state, it has a claim to notability. Nonetheless, it fails my standards for skyscrapers. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Myrtle Beach

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

Fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. The city is not notable for tall buildings and the buildings are not notably tall. The list does not meet WP:CLN, none of the building on the list is notable, so there is nothing there that can assist in navigation. Sources in the article are entirely database entries. // Timothy :: talk 15:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 15:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a major city (less than 35k population) and only 5 of these buildings actually have known heights. Fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons. Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The only thing available is routine coverage in Emporis and Skyscraperpage. Thirdly, I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in 'Myrtle Beach' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources. Spiderone 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far from being a major city. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:57, 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 keep. Let's see if we can expand the article. If all else fails, feel free to AfD again. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Centre Sheraton Hotel

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

A perfectly normal nice hotel; the article contains no claim of notability. Four sources in the article are a blog, a database listing, and two articles about events that occurred at the hotel. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. The article does not meet WP:GNG or 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." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV. The article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. // Timothy :: talk 06:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 06:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is a fairly tall building but architectural importance is probably not present, as it is only the 37th tallest in Montreal and the fourth tallest hotel there. I also did not manage to find significant coverage. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hotels are pretty WP:MILL, and exist in every city on earth. (Some small towns might not have any hotels, but any city of moderate size will.) And furthermore, the vast majority of hotels are part of international hotel chains rather than being standalone independent entities. Accordingly, there's no point in indiscriminately maintaining an unsourced article about every hotel that exists — the bar for making a hotel notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires reliably sourced evidence of its significance, such as a noteworthy historical or cultural impact. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it has a couple of claims to fame but not enough to be notable. I'm on the edge with this one. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG, just needs improvement. The English-language Gazette gave it a three-page spread when it opened, not including a full-page ad, which ran with a number of advertisements wishing the hotel good luck, which was common for large projects around those times: [11] [12] and some coverage from far away here: [13]. That's just English-language coverage. Not all hotels are notable, but I'm disappointed that this is being dismissed as a "routine hotel", especially since hotels are one area of the encyclopaedia where I've been editing recently. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss sources presented in the last !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by SportingFlyer plus the sources in the article are more than adequate to pass WP:GNG. Oakshade (talk) 20:30, 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. Missvain (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gair Rhydd

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

Non-notable that fails WP:GNG, cartoon controversy as a single incident only establishes notability for [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy |the event]], not the paper. Awards are non-notable. 17jiangz1 (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a student newspaper for a major university, which has been published for almost 50 years. It has won the Student newspaper of the year award in 2005 and received general news coverage (available online) in general news sources, in particular about the cartoon of Muhammad. The lengthy articles in BBC News and the Daily Telegraph are clearly about Gair Rhydd, contrary to what the nominator alleges. Sionk (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amkgp 💬 14:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and Amkgp. See this and that. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webclift Airways

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

non-notable 1 destination airline that as of yet hasn't begun business. No coverage anywhere. Praxidicae (talk) 13:37, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom: WP:GNG and in the current climate pure speculation!!--Petebutt (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you meant to refer to WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: By WP:CONSENSUS the nominator's nomination would be in error - scheduled airlines are considered to be notable. However this fails WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON (by, essentially, two years) and shouldn't have been moved out of draftspace. Since it has, those apply, and it should be deleted without prejudice to recreation if and when the airline exists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly review this page as a source of article. More articles will be published within due time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathrow0003 (talk • contribs) 11:28am, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Heathrow0003; your source doesn't work. It asks us to input data to get results. Nightfury 15:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (with a lock on moving it back to articlespace) with a view to incubation. As much as I want to delete there is a few (albeit not particularly decent) sources that prove that it exists, I would recommend that the creator submits it through AfC once they are happy its ready for moving to articlespace. I have noted there is a few back-and-forward pagemoves to and from draftspace, so would recommend a move protect be added once article is in dratspace. Nightfury 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I PRODed this back in September, and nothing much seems to have changed since. WP is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Article has now been in and out of Draft multiple times. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two years from now, who knows what the travel industry will look like? Because it keeps getting moved around, if it is draftified, move protection is warranted. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Osler

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

I declined the A7 speedy since there an obviously plausible claim to academic notability with multiple published math papers in peer reviewed journals. However, on closer inspection I don't see the subject as satisfying any of the relevant notability guidelines. Citability of his math papers is pretty low, both in GScholar and in MathSciNet, with h-index somewhere in single digits. He was a runner participating and winning some local marathons (according to the article, there are no references but I am taking the claims at face value for now), but even assuming all of that is true, that seems to fall quite short of passing WP:ATHLETE. He has written a couple of books on running that are available on Amazon, so theoretically there could be a case for WP:AUTHOR but I did not find published reviews of those either. In Google News I found a couple of articles with one-word mentions of him, such as [14]. Overall none of this seems to add up to notability. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I am withdrawing the nomination in view of the discussion above. The subject's notability has been established, and the article's creator has been made aware of the relevant COI guidelines and indicated their willingness to respect them. Nsk92 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~, to be run through AfC. While I think the subject is probably notable per WP:NPROF, the article is almost entirely primarily-sourced, has serious style problems, shows possible signs of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY etc. The creator should disclose any COI. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you think the subject might be notable under WP:PROF? To me of all the plausible notability grounds here, the case under WP:PROF seemed the weekest. Nsk92 (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry! The article should probably be (eventually?) under Thomas J. Osler, as the notable papers are published under that name or as T. J. Osler. I added a link to the right GS profile under External Links. Anyway, there are several papers on that profile with 100s of citations, which I think is enough, especially in a low-citation field like math. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes, I see you are right, somehow when I was doing a GScholar search, I missed this GScholar Profile page and most of the citation hits it is showing. I agree that there might be a plausible case for WP:PROF notability here, and that draftification is a good option, particularly in view of COI concerns. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to keep, per WP:HEY by David Eppstein. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Osler is a three-time national champion runner (who also won many local races---not simply participating in local events as the user above mentioned). I have added a reference which cites his three national championship runs. I strongly suspect they are also referenced in issues of the Long Distance Log of 1965 and 1967, that being the only record of such things at the time, but those logs do not seem to be searchable and I am combing through them manually.

Also, I have a COI in that I know Osler personally and gathered material through recorded interviews with him; however, I then realized that probably does not meet citeability guidelines. Skymath1 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I see that you have also added a reference[15] that Osler has been inducted into Road Runners Club of America Hall of fame. Thus he satisfies part 10 of WP:NTRACK and is notable on those grounds. I can withdraw this nomination, but given what you say about your COI personal association with Osler, it would be preferable if we move the article to draftspace, you work on developing it there further and adding some independent sources, and then re-submit the article through the WP:AfC process. Nsk92 (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU for all the helpful feedback. Although I think the style of the article can be improved, I think that it is sufficiently cited now with third-party citations to justify staying in article space. I shall review the bio stylesheet and work to improve the overall style but I don't see a reason to put it back to draftspace. However, I am very new to the process and gratefully welcome feedback and guidance. Thank you again! Skymath1 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your COI, YOU SHOULD NOT EDIT THE ARTICLE WHILE IT IS IN ARTICLE SPACE. Nsk92 and myself are proposing moving it to draft space so that you may work on it some more, and because we have concerns about whether it is currently mainspace-ready. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I will refrain from further edits. However, all the original objections with regards to meritability and third-party citations have been addressed, so it seems to me that the article is appropriate for mainspace, presumably leaving intact notices about improvements.Skymath1 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, sorry to "shout". You'll want to read the COI guidelines. The tl;dr is that for any edits that are not completely trivial, you should make a request on the talk page, and an editor without close connection will then evaluate and implement. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I read the COI guidelines after one of the above users (it may have been you?) mentioned COI. I understood it to mean to be very careful and only edit things that are well-documented. I can clearly see the lack of documentation that prompted the original flag for deletion, but I think it's correct now, and the edits I made after finding the COI policy have all been cited. To clarify, though, if I find more references, should I refrain from adding them directly, but rather put them in the Talk page with a request to be added? I'm referring to simply adding references here, not to modifying substantive content. Thank you again for your guidance.Skymath1 (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Please make future requests for edits through the talk page rather than implementing them directly. That includes the addition of references, also because the referencing in the article as you left it was not good. When suggesting references, please aim for publications about Osler by other people rather than anything written by Osler or published by his employer. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This solution is reasonable but it does have some drawbacks. I'm not sure if the article, if left in mainspace, will have any other active editors, apart from Skymath1. As a practical matter that means that Skymath1 might have to wait for quite a while for the edits they suggest/request at the article talk page to be implemented. Having said that, if Skymath1 is OK with this option, I'll withdraw the nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. The article is in significantly better shape than it was 24 hours ago, and I greatly thank the several contributors. The referencing is excellent, and I am impressed that someone discovered the math conference held in Osler's honor (OslerFest, April 17, 2010) before I could get around to requesting it in the Talk page. There is an important reference regarding Osler's unification of the Vieta and Wallis products: there is a section in a textbook on Pi (the number), written only 2 or 3 years after Osler's discovery, which is entirely about the discovery. Having original work get into a textbook in such a short amount of time is quite impressive. I will add the request to have this added back once I remember which textbook it's in.

Thank you again for all the help and guidance to a newb. Skymath1 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, citation record on Google Scholar is enough for WP:PROF#C1 especially given the typical low citation numbers for this field. I found multiple sources concerning fractional calculus by other people with his name in their titles, also suggestive of #C1 notability. No opinion on whether his running career is also adequate for notability but we only need one notability criterion. I have cleaned up the mathematics part of the article; the running part also needs cleanup but I think it is not in such bad shape that draftification is necessary, and WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 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. If someone wants to redirect, go for it. Missvain (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mapping (fandom)

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

The topic here seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:OR (the article is reference solely to unreliable sources, like YouTube, fandom.com, even cites a discord server...). Few more reliable sources don't discuss the "mapping fandom", just some of its more prominent creations. This is a fascinating topic - but it needs to be properly researched and written up in reliable sources first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why the article is requested for deletion (sources) and I do not oppose it that much anymore. What I'd like to say is, few news outlets, other companies, etc. even dare to touch the fandom. For example: SMART BANANA, a notorious example (mentioned in the article) published a mapping video with a couple of things that the mapping fandom views badly, and SMART BANANA had to take their video down. So the article has a disadvantage from the start. Also, some references are just to demarcate that a mentioned thing exists. Geogranerd (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geogranerd, I understand, but bottom line (for Wikipedia) are the WP:OR and WP:GNG policies. Until someone else publishes about the mapping fandom, we can't do it. (Also, that publication has to be reliable, YouTube or fandom/wikia are not). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus. Okay then. There may be too much WP:OR. I will have to agree. Geogranerd (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:OR. Sources almost entirely consist of Fandom and Youtube links, and as far as I can tell there is none (or extremely limited) reliable coverage of this subject. TheRealDario04 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, and as fan content. If any individual Youtuber is notable per our guidelines, they should get a page. Including a bunch of non-notable Youtubers (under 10k subscribers without any RS coverage) under the heading of a 'fandom' is not the way to get it done. And as noted, an incredible amount of OR ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTCi
Delete per reasons outlined above by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Dario. toweli (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above.Eccekevin (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Soft redirect to Wikibooks:Mapping on YouTube Original research is allowed on Wikibooks. I suggest we create a cross-wiki redirect, and maybe move some of the content there, keeping this page's history intact so that it can be attributed to the original writers. Koopinator (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That might be the best solution yet. I would support this, since it both keeps mapping available on a Wikimedia Foundation site and complies with the site rules. Geogranerd (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Soft redirect to Wikibooks:Mapping on YouTube per reasons indicated above by Koopinator. Geogranerd (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a novel relist for me, but given that a fairly unusual resolution was proposed (and received some support), I'm going to relist it to see if there is further consideration for it. There is currently fully clear consensus that it wouldn't remain on Wikipedia
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikibooks:Mapping on YouTube. Recent comments have the better idea. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Out of project scope fancruft, not worth keeping even a redirect around for. That other projects might tolerate such low-grade content is not our concern. Sandstein 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am a mapper, so I'd like some of it kept somewhere, but the current article truly terrible. I'd be willing to take on the project. I'm happy with a soft redirect or userfy it. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no objection to userfication. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not agree with the soft redirect proposal, what Wikibooks hosts isn't much of our concern, but I'm fine with userification. TheRealDario04 (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If what Wikibooks hosts is truly not of our concern, that would really call the entire concept of a soft redirect into question. That would probably be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect. Currently we have over 1000 soft redirects and plenty of other forms of integration with Wikipedia's sister projects. Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion also states that soft redirects are a valid alternative to deletion, especially if an article to be deleted is likely to be re-created. I would argue it is likely, given it's already been created once. Koopinator (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Except if you take a look at the list of soft redirects you yourself provided, you'll see that only 2 are to Wikibooks (not counting the templates). I am not arguing against all soft redirects, I am arguing against a soft redirect to Wikibooks. You are just trying to loophole your fancruft onto Wikipedia. TheRealDario04 (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  So, if you're not arguing against all soft redirects, then that means you think the Wiktionary soft redirects are okay, right? If that's the case, why is it that what Wiktionary hosts is our concern, but not Wikibooks? I'm getting the impression that you want to ignore the established alternative to deletion of soft redirecting because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By the way, i had actually taken a look at the list of soft redirects, but i don't think a meaningful distinction can be made here between "stuff that belongs on Wiktionary" and "stuff that belongs on Wikibooks". They're both sister projects of Wikipedia, which although different in scope still nonetheless have a degree of integration with this site. Koopinator (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikitionary is a dictionary, literally purposed for concise definitions of words, which in my opinion is perfectly fine and is the best alternative in case it doesn't have/deserve an article on Wikipedia. Wikibooks is a place for writing and posting original research, which is the opposite of what is wanted on Wikipedia. There is a reason why it's basically unused in soft redirects. Stop putting words in my mouth.TheRealDario04 (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is neither a dictionary, nor a publisher of original thought. Both of these are contrary to Wikipedia policy and outside the scope of the project. That's why they are on different sites. As for why there's only 2 Wikibooks redirects and 1641 Wiktionary soft redirects (not counting templates), it seems to me because of a statistics thing: Wikibooks has 3152 books, while Wiktionary has 6475108 entries. Any given Wikibooks entry has a 0.0006% (1 out of 1576) chance of having a corresponding Wikipedia soft redirect, while any given Wiktionary entry has a 0.0003% (1 out of 3945) chance of having a soft redirect. Also, i think it's worth noting that Wiktionary does in fact allow original research - "we don't have any policy on original research; sometimes original research is inevitable and necessary to help us document a rare or brand-new use that no one else has documented before". Koopinator (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Soft redirect to Wikibooks:Mapping on YouTube. I love weird Internet shit -- but this article is pretty bad as-is, and it doesn't seem to establish notability right now. Like Bearian above, I would greatly enjoy working on it as a draft or a userspace page. I've substed a copy of its current content at User:JPxG/Mapping for now. jp×g 08:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, happy for userfication as requested above. KylieTastic (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Missvain (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robiul Islam Jibon

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO Coriannakox (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coriannakox (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had a number of his 700 compositions performed by notable artists, has won notable awards and received coverage in reliable Bangkadeshi sources, therefore passing WP:NCOMPOSER in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:35, 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 redirect to Phillips Academy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Revere

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

Non-notable high school newspaper. Not even close to passing WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to nominate this myself but got sidetracked. It's kind of ironic that there are all these debates about whether secondary schools are notable, and here we have an article on the student rag of one! Completely non-notable, IMHO (and the same probably goes for their other title The Phillipian, as well). No secondary sources cited and none that I could find, either. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phillips Academy (or the clubs section of the page once it's created), or if there's some other publication with the same name, just delete. It is worth noting that this isn't just a run-of-the-mill high school, but rather one that receives quite a lot more media attention by virtue of its prestige and history. Its main student newspaper, The Phillipian, is 160 years old and looks fine. This paper, on the other hand, was only founded in 2017, and a quick search turned up nothing that'd establish GNG or even the more lenient WP:NMEDIA. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. None of the cited sources that discuss this publication are independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phillips Academy and merge any well-sourced content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 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)} 15:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Oblivion

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

Non notable short film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. No full length reviews from nationally known critics. Simply promotion from one of multiple SPAs dedicated to promoting the director. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:14, 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)} 15:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Things My Father Never Taught Me

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

Non notable short film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No major awards. No full length reviews from nationally known critics. Simply promotion from one of multiple SPAs dedicated to promoting the director. (note that the last quote is faked.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find enough out there to establish notability for this short. It screened at festivals and won a couple of awards, but none of the awards are major enough to count towards notability. The general rule of thumb is that just screening at film festivals isn't enough to establish notability unless the film festival or part of the film festival is extremely notable and discerning, like the Un Certain Regard section of Cannes. I'm uncertain about the Apocalypse Later site. It does look better than the typical blog type site, that's for certain, but one review isn't enough on its own to establish notability even if it were to pass muster at RS/N. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 12:13, 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. What a name... Missvain (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Sax Man

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

Notability is not established by current sources provided, which are YouTube videos and reddit, as well as an article from Metal Insider, none of which are reliable. Laval (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss I've heard of him, a semi-notable internet celebrity. Not sure if it passes the smell test, but if we could establish notability, would be a great addition. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails WP:MUSICBIO evidence of Notability not found Samat lib (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He lasted less than a minute on America's Got Talent. See also User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_YouTubers. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (film)

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

Non notable short film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. No full length reviews from nationally known critics. Simply promotion from one of multiple SPAs dedicated to promoting the director. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 04:03, 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. Missvain (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemphill Fine Arts

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

This longstanding unreferenced article was recently moved to draft but, as per recent consensus on Draftification it is more appropriate to resolve its future using this process. I have added a couple of items of local media coverage as references, and can also find passing mentions relative to works exhibited at the Gallery, but my searches are not finding the level of substantial coverage about the Gallery itself which would be needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the hyper-local coverage show here is not enough to indicate anything is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, Just added a non-regional source. I realize it's the Washington Post, but I think that paper is read outside Washington. I read it, and I don't even live in the US. Vexations (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it is still a local source. If you could find mention in a source outside DC that would work, but a DC paper is never going to be non-local on a DC event. We have gone over this for the New York Times a huge number of times, and just because a paper is a major one does not make ever mention in it major, or negate the fact it has a local circulation area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the washing post has a local section, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ this was published in the /lifestyle section. Also, noting that Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) was a failed proposal. What policy are you basing this on, WP:AUD? I think that works in the WP's favor in this context.Vexations (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single article in a national newspaper is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. S. Rathore

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

Non-notable politician. Hasn't won any local, state or national election. Fails WP:Politician Palmsandbeaches (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notable Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the listed positions make him pass WP:NPOL and the sources do not constitute secondary significant coverage (WP:GNG). - Tristan Surtel (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete party functionaries at this level are not default notable and the sourcing does not show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vice presidents of political party youth wings are not "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL, and the sourcing is nowhere close to good enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Heba Aisha (talk) 17:01, 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 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)} 15:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manilal Pandya

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find anything to validate his contribution as a freedom fighter Palmsandbeaches (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is anyone able to search in Gujarati? I think the term ‘freedom fighter’ describes a very large number of people in India and does not necessarily make someone notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an unsourced article, and does not even assert having done anything that would make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anoop Sharma Pem

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

Footballer who fails GNG and most likely NFOOTY as well, if he even exist. The only mention of him comes from this article: [16] which is very dubious. His supposedly debut international match against Algeria in 2007 or 2008 didn't seem to happen at all. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like a hoax. According to RSSSF, Mauritius not only didn't play Algeria on that day, they have in fact never played them! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Chris - since the 'match report' is a work of fiction, this automatically casts doubt on the rest of the article. I can find nothing more than Transfermarkt and Wikipedia mirrors on this guy and Transfermarkt is widely considered to be unreliable by editors here Spiderone 12:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax, based on the above. Giant Snowman 12:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Number 5 7 10:23, 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. Sandstein 10:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carruço

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

Fails NARTIST. The exhibitions are not in significant venues, and/or are in vanity galleries (Broadway Gallery, NY Arts, etc). Many could not be verified at all, and none could be verified in secondary WP:RS. None of the collections could be verified. Theredproject (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no indication that this artist meets the notability criteria for WP:ARTIST, nor WP:GNG. It is quite possible it may be an autobio, and if not it's a promotional effort. Netherzone (talk) 01:01, 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 delete. czar 09:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benno Rothschild

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

Fails NARTIST. Having a local paper write an article about someone vandalizing a statue does equal N. In part because BLP1E, but also because what happened isn’t even a 1E... There are No WP:RS to add anything beyond what is there, which is quite PROMO and OR. Theredproject (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional stew of buzzwords.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article does not meet the notability requirements for GNG nor for NARTIST. Could not find anything online in the form of SIGCOV in reliable sources, just mentions of the one incident of vandalism. Netherzone (talk) 01:05, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freydoon Rassouli

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

Fails NARTIST. None of the exhibitions are in significant venues. Many of the venues are vanity galleries (eg Agora). No WP:RS to verify any of it. Quite PROMO. Theredproject (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 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. Missvain (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Italy

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

Trivial intersection, lacks notability. Fram (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dswitz10734 (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
because...? Fram (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why don't you nominate all of them at once Category:Armorials of presidents? Is List of personal coats of arms of presidents of the United States notable but those of other nations not? Dream Focus 16:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any actual reason to keep this? There is no reason why these might be notable for one country and not for another, so lumping them all together wouldn't make for a good AfD. If you have actual evidence that for Itay, this is a notable subject, please share it with us. Otherwise, your "keep" is meaningless. Fram (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only references in the American one is one website: https://www.americanheraldry.org/ so not sure what you believe qualifies as notability in this case. The information is probably listed in history books or historical websites for each nation, but you'd have to speak their language to find it. Dream Focus 17:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here I was thinking this was an AfD for the Italy list. Apparently instead of nominating this one because it lacks notability, I somehow proclaimed that the American one is a notable subject and should be discussed here. Oh well, perhaps I should point out that last week, I already nominated a few other countries, but that I don't want to overwhelm AfD and the editors by starting all these discussions at once. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Iceland and the already deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Ireland? Fram (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why nominate some and not all? They are all basicaly the same. No sense doing it one at a time. Dream Focus 17:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because notability for one country may be different to notability for another country? In what way is this inquiry relevant for this AfD even? The Italy list won't be more or less notable because I also nominate France or not, surely? The only effect such a group nomination may have is muddying the waters, and getting them all kept because one or two were incorrectly nominated. I don't get your obsession with this reasoning. Fram (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because people like you love to complain about WP:TRAINWRECKs and give "Procedural keeps" if a single item in a bundled AFD is actually notable? Because that gives you even more of an excuse not to give any reasoning in the original comment? Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that list articles don't follow the same rules as other articles. These are notable awards/honors, and a list of all those that won a notable award is automatically a valid list, as is listing all notable awards someone notable won. Listing the valid information in this format is acceptable for a list article. Dream Focus 17:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- An armorial, a coat of arms, is not "a notable award". It is in many cases not something they "won" at all, but something they simply inherited. In some cases, it is a "prize" which accompanies an award, but it isn't the award. (Even if it were, your "a list of all those that won a notable award is automatically a valid list" is false as well, we have many notable awards for which a list of recipients would be unacceptable, e.g. the Purple Heart is a notable award, but a list (or lists) with all recipients would be swiftly deleted). Fram (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is already a list of all recipients that have their own Wikipedia articles Purple_Heart#Notable_recipients. Dream Focus 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is not what you were arguing. We already have a list of all Presidents of Italy, and that one is not up for deletion obviously. The question is why we need another list for this unrelated characteristic. Fram (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there anything showing where the coats of arms are used, if there's any official bearing of them? It says several presidents chose to just use the Italian arms, but where is that officially used and what makes it "personal"? Entirely unsourced, and only a few of these are actual personal arms. Einaudi and Segni's matching image appears to be purely original research, combining the Italian arms with the collar of Supreme Order of Christ and purporting that to be the personal arms. I removed the gallery of unsourced images on that page. Reywas92^Talk 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, those of Nicola and Segni are just the generic ones for those family named used at it:Armoriale delle famiglie italiane (Dem-Dib) and it:Armoriale delle famiglie italiane (Se): is there evidence they specifically used these, presented in some way when they were president? Oscar Luigi Scalfaro's likewise says it's "ancestral arms" (a variation of which is at it:Oscar Luigi Scalfaro as family arms, added earlier this year so who knows how it was used by him personally!), with a collar for Order of Isabella the Catholic added, just one of many foreign honors it says he received – the same user also made a version for the Order of the Seraphim. Any sources of how this was used in reality??? Honestly I think the creator of this article should be santioned for massive WP:OR violations, and the argument-free keep votes above are a clueless, reflexive embarrassment, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong! Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. If the coats-of-arms are notable, they are notable because of the individuals they belong to, not because those individuals happen to have held the same office. So should be mentioned in the notable individuals' articles, and not spuriously lumped together. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. DrKay (talk) 19:04, 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) 08:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of Presidents of Chile

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

Trivial intersection, fails notability. Fram (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. If the armorials are notable, they are notable because of the individuals they belong to, not because those individuals happen to have held the same office. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of Italy, this appears to be a massive load of original research, with no evidence whatsoever that these people used these arms in any way, officially during their presidency or personally. Bachelet's is just the arms from France of this last name and many others are likewise unsourced. Reywas92^Talk 19:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; zero evidence of notability Spiderone 21:11, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of Presidents of Austria

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

Trivial intersection which lacks notability. Fram (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. If the armorials are notable, they are notable because of the individuals they belong to, not because those individuals happen to have held the same office. The article has also averaged less than one pageview per day over the last year. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; zero evidence of notability Spiderone 21:10, 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. Consensus post relisting seems clear the sources are not sufficient for notability. Fenix down (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Roweth

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

Fails WP:GNG and has played only a few games in a non-fully-professional league not listed at WP:FPL, failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is some in-depth coverage but it's all from the same newspaper [17] [18] [19]. If there is another source providing this level of coverage then I think the article should stay. Spiderone 16:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. N:FOOTY and its essay is inadequate for players in top women's football (soccer) leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 20:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to be a degree of coverage, no clear consensus to delete or keep, no harm extending for another week to allow for further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:39, 23 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) 13:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would work best if there were an article like List of W-League players to redirect and merge to Spiderone 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Roweth fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Two articles written within roughly a month of each other in 2009 + a bizarre focus on her in the headline "Roweth caught up in spiteful end to Young Matildas game" do not make her pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, she fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. The W-League was sadly nowhere near as relevant in 2008-2009 as it is now. The one newspaper she received coverage in, the Central Western Daily, serves a population of about 40,000, not enough in my book to be considered reliable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since the only source that has given her any coverage is just the one local paper and since there is no realistic redirect or merge target, I will have to agree that this should be deleted for now Spiderone 09:00, 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 keep per WP:HEY. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Quinn (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER. Sean Quinn redirects to Seán Quinn, where an already-existing hatnote states, "This article is about the Irish businessman. For the journalist, see Sean Quinn (writer)." The entirely superfluous Sean Quinn (disambiguation) page is not even mentioned. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - If the community thinks that one article is primary, then hatnotes are the answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several entries. There were several valid entries that just needed to be added. Boleyn (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per additions by Boleyn. // Timothy :: talk 19:33, 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. Sandstein 10:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lone Star Report

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

This article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG) as there does not appear to be significant coverage regarding this (now defunct) periodical. Two of the three sources cited in the article are dead links and the third source is only a passing reference by a source of questionable reliability. I ran BEFORE searches and did not find any meaningful additional sources that could serve to improve the article. Thus, I think this article should be deleted. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is nothing indicating this publication was notable. The failed political candidate who started it also seems to not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable publication. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:20, 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond's Run

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

This article has multiple issues, is a stub, and it seems that the original page creator has left Wikipedia. It also is written like an essay, and ~~isn't really notable~~. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 04:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Speedy Delete as G12~~ - Seems to have been copied from a blurb. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That blurb is four years newer than the article here, it's exceedingly likely the copying was from here to there. WilyD 09:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't offered an opinion on whether it's promotional (or even thought about it long enough to form one). I'm only evaluating the copyvio claim; the specific one was wrong, whether it was copied from somewhere else, I don't know, of course. WilyD 09:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with WilyD in the sense that your brain.ly link on the speedy delete seemed to be copied from wikipedia, since the brain.ly answer included [1] in the exact place that was in the wikipedia article. The chances of the original page creator copying the [1] and using it as a footnote is very unlikely. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 23:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Text that reads like it was copied from a blurb well enough to be plagiarized by a blurb is still promotional text. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: satisfies WP:BK #1 and WP:GNG with an entry in Cynthia Davis and Verner D. Mitchell's Encyclopedia of the Black Arts Movement, a chapter in Carole Hamilton and Peter Kratzke's Short Stories in the Classroom and a book-length study guide published by Gale. The last two sources strongly indicate it also meets WP:BK #4. There's also extensive discussion in this article (again in a pedagogical context) and apparently an article in English Language Notes, though that doesn't seem to be online. The article is in poor shape but the arguments for deletion are far from convincing and indicate no serious attempt's been made to determine notability. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG as brought out from the sources listed by Arms & Hearts above, so a notable story from a notable collection that is also entitled to an article (quick gsearch for Gorilla, My Love brings up reviews by African American Review - here, and kirkus - here). Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seeing some keep comments leads me to believe that this is notable. But I would recommend a WP:TNT instead of keep, since it has multiple problems.―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 04:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I agree that the articles needs serious improvement. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Article shows WP:POTENTIAL and has some demonstration of WP:NOTABILITY to show sources exist. Needs work and rewriting but that's editing and not an AFD process. Archrogue (talk) 00:01, 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. Sandstein 10:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Purpura

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

No evidence of notability as per WP:ACADEMIC. Spyder212 (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep: (Disclaimer, article creator) I definitely agree that it's right on the line. But she's been mentioned around 30-40 times in the popular press/scientific literature: which seems to narrowly meet the criteria of notability. I don't particularly care one way or another, though. And it can temporarily be moved to my private sandbox: if that's something that you prefer for now. I certainly don't think it's a vital article – probably only slightly meeting the criteria of being included – but I'll be updating it and adding more sources within the next week as well. It's all up to you. AttaAx (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The h-index of around 8, with top cited paprer having 32 cites in GScholar, far too low for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else to indicate notablity per WP:PROF or on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She appears not to pass WP:PROF#C1 and neither the references provided in the article nor what I can find from searching point to any other kind of notability. Mentions in popular press are not good enough; we need in-depth coverage of her or of her work. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF C1, no signs of GNG or of any other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:25, 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. Sandstein 10:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Saha

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

Doesn't seem notable per WP:JOURNALIST. This suggests major WP:COI of paid editing or promotion of a colleague or friend. — Amkgp 💬 03:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 03:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 03:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable, 3rd-party secondary sources providing significant coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 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. czar 09:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinter, Arizona

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

Another day, another isolated passing siding. THis one is still there, having been extended considerably of late. But other than some sort of mineral operation that showed up around 2000, there's nothing in the area except an irrigation channel and a road. I find no evidence of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yes another passing siding. It does have some usage by railfans who take photos there. A redirect to an article listing locations on the Union Pacific in Arizona would be good, but there is no such article. MB 15:47, 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. Improve with reliable secondary sources, please. Missvain (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bell & Ross

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

Advertisement masquerading as article on company that has already been found not to satisfy corporate notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bell & Ross. I have not read the deleted advertisement, but the text of the article cannot have been expanded. The article has evidently been reference-bombed with questionable sources to address comments in the AFD about sourcing.

If this were a draft in AFC, I would decline it as being written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself, and saying nothing about what others have said about the company. It was also submitted as a draft in AFC (possibly in order to prevent draftification), and I did decline it.

Naïve Google search finds many hits on the watches, but they are all primary or advertising, and the text of the article doesn't even refer to secondary coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article has been expanded with reliable sources including NYT, Esquire, and Robb Report. The presence of this article in so many other language wikis also hints at its worldwide notability. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 02:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not an unreasonable stance, from the creating editor. ;) BTW, the "presence of this article in so many other language wikis" means little, IMO, especially when most of those articles have no sources other than the company's website. What it "hints at" is, perhaps the company has a multilingual marketing team. Or they've discovered Google Translate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are pure churnalism, and in most cases pretty blatantly so. The only proper RS one is the NYT article, but it's about sapphire crystal, not about this company, and in any case not enough on its own to satisfy WP:GNG / WP:CORP. (I was first going to say keep and improve by cutting out all the promo blurb and fluff like 'collaborated with Renault' etc., but I'm not sure there'd be much left. And even then it wouldn't be any more notable than it is now.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I originally created this article when I wanted to know more about the brand and of course came to Wikipedia — and found no article! If I want to know more about a topic and Wikipedia doesn't have the article, that's a big Wikifail in my opinion. We're supposed to be creating the best encyclopedia in the world here. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 17:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sources. The arguments for deletion would apply to most commercial companies that advertise.--Racklever (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Supplier to the Air Force and space missions would seem notable, could use some original French language sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Passes WP:NCORP with sufficient WP:ORGIND sources. I can understand mistakenly assuming that a watch brand that's only 30 years old must be a fly-by-night, especially when compared to others that have been around for 100-200 years, however Bell & Ross is actually a fairly notable Swiss brand within the industry. Is it notable as defined by Wikipedia? Yes. Apart from the company's collection of third party reviews, there is analysis of the brand itself, such as The Watch, Thoroughly Revised by Stone and Pulvirent. Abrams 2018. I would also point to many articles in Hodinkee, which is sort of the horological equivalent of Car & Driver. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:28, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Bilal Khatri

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

non-notable craftsman. I'm surprised this has been around so long - there's no meaningful coverage, everything is either self published, unreliable or press release. I searched under all three language spellings of his name and came back with nothing and the awards aren't really notable either. Praxidicae (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: self promotional article ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:31, 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. Sandstein 10:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pârsem Kût

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

Unreferenced article on a seeminly non-notable topic. Noahfgodard (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero source used. Needed to establish that this is an actual event and why it's important. Otherwise, someone can just make up things. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 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) 08:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anshuman Pratap Singh

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

draft submission declined, author then self-moved to main namespace, references were added, but notability doesn't seem to be solved to me Martin Urbanec (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Martin Urbanec (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete preferably speedy, this is a promotional dumpster fire and a borderline hoax. Praxidicae (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable sources, nothing used to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 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.