Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 28	December 30 >

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 keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Makokis

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

Delete People notable for only one event/ WP:BLP1E We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met, Subjects meets all 3 points. Wikipedia article are about subjects that are notable and the nationality of the subjects does not influence or change the criteria for notability. Either the subject is notable or not. Mr.Makokis, fits the guidelines of WP:BLP1E. The subject participated in the Amazing Race. There are no guidelines for winners of a TV reality show, in fact if we can look at the failed proposal here: Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants). Winners of tv reality shows do not justify creating a Wikipedia page. The subject remains a low-profile individual, with a modest following on social media (less than 10K) [1] with a average of 10 comments per post, indicating that the subject does not have a "cult" following. As per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography, the subject did not received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has not been nominated for such an award several times. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers, the subject has not had a significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. The subject did receive some coverage about his career and his passage on the amazing race, but ultimately he received coverage for his TV reality passage. The event(s) he was involved with are not significant, such has The Amazing Race or his career, therefore in my opinion a stand alone article on the subject is not needed, or at best case scenario, we could do a redirect to The Amazing Race Canada Season 7, but I do not think it's pertinent. Lethweimaster (talk)

Strong keep Wikipedia is woefully lacking in articles about indigineous people and this article is about a notable individual. See this which is more than significant coverage, as is this. Praxidicae (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not entirely sure if this would be an individual only notable for one event. Appears to meet WP:BASIC, and as noted above, there is significant coverage available. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets BASIC and ANYBIO. The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
Weak Keep as per Sneakerheadguy KylieTastic (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After a BEFORE search, it's clear that this individual meets GNG and BASIC, as they have received SIGCOV in reliable sources independent of the subject. Praxidicae has found good indepth coverage. They are not just notable for one event. I've just added two additional citations to the article. Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To see if we can come up with a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not WP:1E and comfortably passes WP:BASIC. Java Hurricane 06:12, 30 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) 03:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balaji Ganesan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as far as I can see. No appearances at World Football, ISL and Soccerway and not listed anywhere else. Coverage not enough for GNG. Spiderone 23:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Fails WP:GNG Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. It is time for Wikipedia to stop being footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 15:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BY Revanth

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

Has already had a PROD. Was moved to draft space as an alternative to deletion but article creator moved it immediately back. Still no evidence of WP:GNG and was unable to find anything. World Football, Indian Super League and Soccerway are the only databases that list him and none show an appearance so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Spiderone 23:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:BIO. I previously would have suggested draftification, but given the creator moved it immediately back to mainspace, that evidently is not a useful path to take. Java Hurricane 08:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Pilean (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer. This should not be footballapedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It would also have been eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G5. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Mitchell

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

Nothing has changed since the first AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maud Mitchell) from November 2019. Other than that the block evading family member of the subject has created this article from another in his long line of socks. The subject still fails WP:MILPERSON (subject's membership of IRA and C na mB was no more notable than any of the other 10s of thousands of people who were involved in those organisations at that time), WP:AUTHOR (subject's book was posthumously "self-published" by a family member) or WP:GNG (subject is still not covered in significant works independent of the subject). Author continues to treat Wikipedia as his own personal genealogical website, continues to IP-hop and sock in the pursuit of same, and is generally WP:NOTHERE for anything other than his own goals. As evidenced by, YET AGAIN, re-creating an article on himself and several of his family members. Should have been speedied as recreated material. As per previous tag. Guliolopez (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and consider WP:SALT to prevent this being created again disruptively Spiderone 23:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not a notable person. Also Salt as this disruptive, block evading editor keeps re-creating articles which have been AF'd. Also ban this editor for life! Spleodrach (talk) 11:18, 31 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) 03:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aqib Nawab

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; hasn't played a game according to World Football, Indian Super League and Soccerway. Spiderone 23:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:BIO. Would have suggested draftification as there is a possibility of the subject playing a game (or more), but given that the article creator has move-warred by moving back draftified articles they created to mainspace, this evidently is not a useful course. Java Hurricane 08:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 09:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time for Wikipedia to stop being Footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Tatupiplu'^talk 10:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 15:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz M Grooms

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 23:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - zero indication of how the subject approaches any notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this autobiography without indication of importance per WP:A7. Alternately, delete because the subject, a dude with a job, has received no coverage in WP:RS and does not pass WP:GNG. FalconK (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid-for spam, see [2]. MER-C 15:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - He has no coverage and does not pass WP:GNG. - Tatupiplu'^talk 18:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has coverage 24.23.107.111 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't remotely approach meeting WP:GNG; just a regular guy working at a not particularly notable business. PohranicniStraze (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the mass proliferation of C[anyletter]Os, such as CTOs (chief technology officers), CEOs (cheif executive officers), COOs (chief operation officers), CGOs (chief geneological officers), CIOs (chief information officers), CFOs (chief financial officers), CBROs (chief bathroom officers), and on and on, having a title in this form is no where near a sign of notability, especially when the company itself is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Fisher

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

Resume-style fluffy entry based on primary sources. No proof of notability per GNG, no inherent notability in any of the alleged functions. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per comments made by Drmies. D🎉ggy54321 ^{(happy new year!)} 01:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ran a search, there's nothing suggesting passage of WP:BIO, the results that I did find were mentions, non-independent coverage or non-RSs. Java Hurricane 08:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article seems promotional and there is no clear evidence supporting WP:BIO / WP:GNG. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article with no actual clear claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Dal Busco

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

Has been tagged as a notability concern for just over three years now. I could not find even one example of extensive coverage from an independent source. There is this but it isn't independent and is too short anyway to be of much use. Fails WP:GNG unless I'm missing something. Spiderone 22:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:BIO. Zero useful coverage. Java Hurricane 08:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Fails WP:BASIC. Pilean (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL failure. Number 5 7 15:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tabernacle Baptist College

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

A relatively small college that is not accredited by any recognized higher education body. Been tagged for 11 years and could not find any sources to meet WP:ORG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. BilCat (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just spam about a non-notable school; see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Java Hurricane 08:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Karamoy

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

Unsourced without any real claim to notability for seven years. Football agents very rarely pass WP:GNG and Karamoy doesn't appear to be an exception. Please note that there are a few namesakes coming up in searches, in particular someone suspected of being involved in embezzlement and also another person who is the brother of Angel Karamoy.

The best sources that I could find relating to this Daniel Karamoy were [3], [4] and [5], which are insufficient in my view. Spiderone 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 22:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP that should have been WP:BLPPRODed. In any case not passing WP:BIO. Hardly any coverage I can find in my search, and whatever there is is not useful for showing notability. Java Hurricane 08:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to have played in a fully-professional league, failing WP:NSPORTS, doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Verses

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

No indication of notability per WP:NALBUM and it did not appear on the charts. ... discospinster _talk 22:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a good article. Well referenced and about a major studio album in the context of underground metal. Even powerful pages like Blabbermouth, Allmusic and Metal Storm praise it. Why delete it? --Apega71 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)--Apega71 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two more reviews not yet referenced in PopMatters [6] and Exclaim! [7]. Coin (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was enriched with more references and reviews of specialized pages. --Chavitico (talk) 13:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above. Pilean (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article are reliable (except Discogs), and so are the ones indicated by Coin. I also found some more reliable sources about the album: [8], [9], [10] and [11]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(HAPPY NEW YEAR!)} 17:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic and MetalReviews.com aren't RS according to WP:MUSICRS (from user not staff) and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_319#Is_Metalreviews.com_a_reliable_source. Coin (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to see those voting keep expand the article based on the sources they found. HĐ (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the last comment. It seems that it is unanimously decided that this article keep. Now it is up to the other users to improve or expand the content. If they want to do it, obviously haha! --Apega71 (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitro (band)

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

Non-notable band, nothing to suggest notability and has been tagged for 10 years. Fails WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any claims in the article that meet WP:BAND, My google search does not find anything either Jeepday (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarawak representatives at Miss Malaysia

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

I'm happy to be proved wrong but this looks like a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation to me. I can't see how it would pass WP:LISTN or fulfil any purpose at WP:LISTPURP. Spiderone 21:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with OP, not seeing how this works on Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Goose (Finnish band)

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

Nothing to suggest notability, not to be confused with the band with the same name from New Zealand. Fails WP:BAND. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims in article that meet WP:BAND. Google search does not find anything. Jeepday (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Our Daily Bread Ministries. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian University GlobalNet

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

No indication of notability, has been tagged for 8 years. Fails WP:GNG. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the parent organisation Our Daily Bread Ministries, where it would be more useful than a list of countries (or rather flags) where the organisation has offices. For an on-line education facility, the monthly hit rate might be enough to make it notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. I found no independent reliable coverage of this organization at all in a WP:BEFORE search I did. @Peterkingiron, an unsourced page hits claim is meaningless for notability purposes. Where is the coverage? The article, which is basically just a staff/course directory, has languished for eight years as the nom pointed out because this isn't a notable topic. It's the abandoned pet project of a WP:SPA. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently wrong with being an SPA and has nothing to do with notability, Atlantic306 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306 When no independent coverage of a topic can be located and only primary sources are used in the article, the article creator being a WP:SPA is a major red flag regarding total lack of notability and abusing Wikipedia for ones own narrow private purposes. In other words, I was saying this article (which amounts to a business directory/brochure) is a case of WP:PROMO and should be deleted for that as well. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a ridiculous demonisation of SPAs, an SPA is not always a coi editor and for all we know he could have died before editing further Atlantic306 (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Our Daily Bread Ministries: Barely found anything about the organization. It's best to partially discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalk Bubblegum

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

Non-notable comic. Only coverage is in an anthology by Ted Rall which chronicles a very large number of comics, this being but one of literally several dozen. Any other sourcing is purely nonexistant. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Rall anthology is a reliable secondary source that covers the comic in more than a trivial manner. I said as much when I DEPROD'd it. Saying I did that "for no reason" is disingenuous and you really should strike that. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still only one source though. I could find literally nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. That it exists and covers the subject in detail makes the objection moot. WP:GNG and WP:WHYN are clear about this. Yes, having one source is not the greatest (maybe to be expected for a stub), but basing a deletion argument off of the fact that you can only find one source is flimsy. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if that's the only coverage. There is a lack of reliable sources. Coin (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG requires multiple secondary sources providing coverage. One single secondary source is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the 'Attitude' article meets WP:V the hurdle here is WP:GNG, I also only find that article which is just not enough. Jeepday (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the consensus is moving in the direction that the single source is unacceptable, may I suggest redirecting the page to Attitude: The New Subversive Cartoonists, the secondary anthology in which the strip features prominently as an ATD. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Abdul Gafoor

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

Lack of notability. Kiran Gopi (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just curious -- This statement Historian M. G. S. Narayanan opined on him as "one of tallest leaders of the Muslim community to take note of economic weakness of a large section of the community and make strenuous efforts towards their progress". The Annual Dr. P M A Gafoor Memorial Lecture is held in his honour each year. screams notability. Can you outline what efforts on WP:BEFORE was undertaken before listing this article for deletion? Ktin (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Founder of major society, Muslim Educational Society, as attested by the sources already in the article. Has buildings and lectures named for him. WP:WikiProject Kerala marked the article as mid importance. @Kiran Gopi: Suggest withdrawal. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Founder of MES gives him an importance, I am withdrawing this deletion request. Sorry for the trouble. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject per contributions to society and monuments named after the subject. Northern Escapee (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Abdul Khader

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

Lack of notability,not meeting GNG --Kiran Gopi (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an obituary service. There appears to be little to no coverage of him in WP:RS. Being rich doesn't make you notable. FalconK (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article states the subject was a civil engineer, and businessman but no indication of nobility in the article or in the sources cited. RationalPuff (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first menber of a very localized ethno-religious community to graduate from a particular institution is not a sign of notablity. Yes, I know a bunch of articles we have elsewhere in this way are extremely Amero-centric, which should be fixed by removing such, not increasing biographies of non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aylesbury Vale Golf Club

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; WP:MILL local sports facility/club, fails GNG as only sources are indiscriminate directory listings. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; modern course, local interest only. Nigej (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I live close to this one and am of the opinion that it doesn't warrant a stand-alone article; would probably get some small mentions if you search through local papers but not notable enough for a general encyclopaedia Spiderone 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of unlicensed and prototype Neo Geo games

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

For the same reasons given in the above AfDs, the list is not notable, fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. References are to individual items, not SIGCOV as a group.

Since this is a simple list, the operative part of LISTN is, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.". Countless AfDs have affirmed a consensus that, barring some extenuating facts particular to a list, for a list to be notable it must be discussed as a group as stated in LISTN. // Timothy :: talk 20:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because in its current state it's a jumble of ideas with loose scope. Someone should probably create NG Dev Team (not sure how they format the name) and list their games there. The company is notable and has sources. The other homebrew games and companies not so much. No prejudice against someone creating a "list of cancelled Neo Geo games" or equivalent, if scope sticks to official games that went unreleased. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - A redirect is better than getting all of this info lost in the sand of time. I do agree with the idea of TarkusAB with creating an article about NG Dev Team but that's easier said than done, because finding info about a German homebrew game maker for Neo Geo is extremely difficult... Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you just voting Redirect because you feel hopeless about the AFD? That's what it sounds like. Also if you use the WP:VG/RS search engine for NG Dev Team, there are quite a few articles about them and their games. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 03:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I don't feel hopeless by voting redirect about all of the deletion nominations. Because I know that the stuff I've contributed is kept in the revision history of the main game list of every system. Roberth Martinez (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's all primary sources. No use in redirecting to List of Neo Geo games if there's nothing to merge. Lacks significant coverage as a topic. Some platforms have significant homebrew/unlicensed game coverage but this does not. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No potential in creating an article. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IceWelder [✉] 11:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This is not a very well-organised list. The most notable titles should be merged with the list to their respective platforms. Deltasim (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:36, 30 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) 03:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Labyrinth Plus! Edition

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

Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Page has been unsourced for six years, and fails WP:NVG; a Google search turns up nothing but YouTube videos, and Google Books only has a couple of brief mentions in books about Microsoft XP. Miniapolis 20:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Miniapolis 20:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if this were notable (it is not), it would still need a WP:TNT as this article is basically WP:NOTHOWTO and would need a comprehensive, fundamental rewrite. Since there is, well, no SIGCOV I can see, it's best to remove this from Wikipedia. Java Hurricane 08:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability per WP:GNG/WP:NVG. NOTHOWTO is an argument for WP:TNT, not deletion, though. IceWelder [✉] 11:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article just doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines but, most importantly, does not seem to pass GNG Spiderone 21:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyone wishes to retrieve content for a merger, they may request a userspace copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled N-Gage games

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

Please see the deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Sony consoles. Group noms haven't gone well for me in the past, so I am nominating other lists like this individually but the same rationale applies to each. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games for other noms. I don't see a redirect as useful, but they are cheap and I have no objection to one. // Timothy :: talk 20:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a WP:GAMECRUFT magnet. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The redirect option is better than getting this list deleted. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom rationale does not apply. The argument to delete on the other articles was that "List of cancelled games on <platforms by company>" was a bad scope, not "List of cancelled games on <platform>". TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Microsoft consoles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled video games. This is a good example of how these types of lists work. They collect primary or unreliable sources about the last mention of a game for a platform and show no evidence that their (unconfirmed!) status as a cancelled game is newsworthy/noteworthy, thus creating lists of about a non-defining quality of the game, that it was once announced for a platform and for whatever reason did not appear. Even if the list were to be limited only to rows that are confirmed by secondary sources to be cancelled, this is still not a major trait of either the games themselves or their platform that warrants tracking as a category nevertheless a list. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The sources are non-RS. This kind of looks haphazardly put together compared to the other lists I worked on. Only the most notable cancelled games should be placed in the main article. Deltasim (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Unlike the other similar articles, this one is poorly sourced and rather short. Probably better to mention to notable reliably sourced ones at the main article or list article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not enough reliably sourced material to merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:LISTN does not provide clear guidance here, and so I have to give larger weight than usual to the number of !votes that find this a useful list. If the sourcing problems highlighted by Czar are not fixed, a future AfD may be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled Sega Genesis games

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

Please see the deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Sony consoles. Group noms haven't gone well for me in the past, so I am nominating other lists like this individually but the same rationale applies to each. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games for other noms. I don't see a redirect as useful, but they are cheap and I have no objection to one. // Timothy :: talk 20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As i've stated on the both the Jaguar and 3DO nominations, a redirect is better than getting this list wiped out completely... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that redirection would be better than deletion (marginally) but I’m not sure I understand why you can’t rationalize a "keep”. That’s not really explained here or elsewhere as far as I can see... Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wasnt the sentiment in the prior discussions more that the intersection of “company” and “cancelled games” were not appropriate? Was there the same conclusion on “platform” and “cancelled games”? My readings were a little less clear that these articles were not appropriate... Sergecross73 msg me 22:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Hi @Sergecross73:, In the prior discussions, there was one AfD that used the company (most recent), four that used the console (older noms), and one that was a simple List of canceled games (older). I think their is a basic consensus from prior AfDs that lists of canceled games in general are usually not notable, which is why I thought conflating them was acceptable, but you have a point and I will update the main nom with this information. // Timothy :: talk 22:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is well-sourced with commentary and explanation. Articles scope and make up is different from ones cited in nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 22:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom rationale does not apply. The problem is when scope is "List of cancelled games on <platforms by company>", not "List of cancelled games on <platform>". Same goes for the other noms. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is focused and well-sourced. List of Sega Genesis games is already extremely long, making a merge unlikely to be beneficial. IceWelder [✉] 11:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is on topic and has sufficient sources for notability. The referenced games also tell some history on the console as well as the companies that attempted to develop/publish the cancelled games. Deltasim (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request for sources: @Deltasim, TarkusAB, IceWelder, and Sergecross73: the subject of the article is "List of cancelled Sega Genesis games", not an individual game. SIGCOV requires the subject be addressed directly and indepth. None of the sources in the article address the subject directly and indepth. Would you list some sources you found with SIGCOV for the subject discussing it as a group, not mentions about individual list items? // Timothy :: talk 16:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Searches like this can be more difficult than usual, because it was primarily active in the 1990s, when sourcing is largely locked away into paper magazines. I think it’s preposterous to think that cancelled games on a platform is something that never happened though. I think it’s far more likely that you misunderstood the reasoning as to why certain different lists were closed as delete, and mis-applied it to these nominations... Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TimothyBlue: Think of it a different way. This list is a cross-categorization of "cancelled games" and "Genesis games". WP:LISTN states there is no consensus on how to determine list notability for cross-categorizations. Sources do exist that discuss "cancelled games" as a set, but listing all cancelled games ever in one article would be unreasonable, so breaking out into articles by console is an acceptable solution. In short, this article is a valid WP:SPINOUT. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced list with a logical scope; as mentioned, having all cancelled games together would be unreasonably large, so platforms are a good way to break them down. Phediuk (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Well-sourced" repeated three times above: Are you impressed by the 300 sources? Because every ref I check here does not verify the basis for the article, that the game was canceled. This list is a collection of times a source has mentioned a game for a platform, not giving any indication of cancellation. Stuff like "Only a single screenshot exists.[88] Showcased at E3 1995.[38]" is patent original research. Whoever wrote this could only find one screenshot. We know nothing about what definitively "exists" because as a tertiary source encyclopedia we depend on secondary sources to vet claims for us. Without reliable sourcing that covers canceled games on the basis that canceled games are worth discussing as a group, the article will sit and collect more of these unfounded claims. And that's before even getting to all of the unreliable sources cited here just to build up the rows: Unseen64, Hidden Palace, Segabits, individual resumes, come on... And that's before checking the dead links. From every row I check, I'm struggling to see this as anything but an egregious violation of "no original research", a core Wikipedia policy. czar 06:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The unreliable sources and original research can be removed as well as the non-notable titles to improve the quality of the content. We could also do without the reasons, which are better placed in either the individual articles of the corresponding titles or in the developer/publisher's history. If there are no objections, it maybe a good time to start editing the rows. Deltasim (talk) 12:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is endemic. It's every row. E.g., "Screenshots exists.[28]", "Conversion of the Amiga original.[48] Screenshots exists.[48] Slated for a July 1992 release.[48]", "Also known as Dan Marino's Touch Down Football.[75] Under development by Park Place Productions.[76]" I count 7% with confirmation of cancelation, and that's before discussing source quality. Without confirmations, this list becomes a coat rack for every name an editor has seen mentioned in any source at any time, each requiring further research as to whether it was even meaningfully in development. This is a potentially useful worklist for researchers in projectspace, absolutely, but for mainspace it's an indiscriminate collection of original research if there isn't citable coverage of game cancellations. czar 20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk about cherry-picking. There’s reliable print magazines from the 1990s cited up and down the list. If you have any good-faith concerns on whether or not any Sega Genesis games from the 1990s are actually still in development and not cancelled, feel free to tag or remove the entries, but AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Serge, those magazine sources cite announcements and development progress, not cancellation notices. It's the same reason we don't cite these sources for anticipated release dates—the source does not know about the game's outcome until it's written. If sources aren't writing about these games being canceled, we're just aggregating original editor research for titles that we found mentioned in a source once and haven't found mentioned again. czar 20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If the concern is with the semantics of "cancelled", then retitle the article List of unreleased Sega Genesis games. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objection to that either, other than it would really only work for inactive platforms. Otherwise, it would include every future release for platforms like Switch/PS5/SeriesX. But on active platforms, we’d have sources that would say cancelled so it would be okay to leave them at the current naming. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Czar:How about this? I can place the reliable sources into the games that have their own articles and exclude the unreliable ones (Unseen64, LinkedIn, etc.) It won't take too long to do so for me, either... Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you're asking to move the refs into their dedicated articles, of course, you can always do that. As for "unreleased" vs. "cancelled", it's the same issue. We don't have sources that a game is unreleased. We have "unreleased" categories for articles on notable games without applicable release dates, but that's for grouping purposes—it has neither the sourcing nor context for a standalone list. czar 20:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That's pretty much the idea i have. I'm getting onto it right now... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy 23:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled Atari Lynx games

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

Please see the deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Sony consoles. Group noms haven't gone well for me in the past, so I am nominating other lists like this individually but the same rationale applies to each. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games for other noms. I don't see a redirect as useful, but they are cheap and I have no objection to one. // Timothy :: talk 20:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I know i sound like a broken record right now but a redirect is a more suitable option for this list... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom rationale does not apply. The argument to delete on the other articles was that "List of cancelled games on <platforms by company>" was a bad scope, not "List of cancelled games on <platform>". TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is well-sourced with commentary and explanation. Articles scope and make up is different from one cited in nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 03:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Sergecross73. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no real reason to delete a list of cancelled titles that is verified by reliable sources with notability to back them up. Deltasim (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request for sources: @Deltasim, TarkusAB, Riddhidev BISWAS, and Sergecross73: the subject of the article is "List of cancelled Atari Lynx games", not an individual game. SIGCOV requires the subject be addressed directly and indepth. None of the sources in the article address the subject directly and indepth. Would you list some sources you found with SIGCOV for the subject discussing it as a group, not mentions about individual list items? // Timothy :: talk 16:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy 23:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled Atari Jaguar games

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

Please see the deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Sony consoles. Group noms haven't gone well for me in the past, so I am nominating other lists like this individually but the same rationale applies to each. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games for other noms. // Timothy :: talk 20:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Like i've stated on the 3DO nomination, a redirect is better than getting this list deleted completely... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to List of Jaguar games.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nom rationale does not apply. The argument to delete on the other articles was that "List of cancelled games on <platforms by company>" was a bad scope, not "List of cancelled games on <platform>". TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is focused and well-sourced. At most, merge to List of Atari Jaguar games. IceWelder [✉] 11:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is sufficient notability and reliable sources, plus a scope that fits with the platform. Deltasim (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request for sources: @Deltasim, TarkusAB, and IceWelder: the subject of the article is "List of cancelled Atari Jaguar games", not an individual game. SIGCOV requires the subject be addressed directly and indepth. None of the sources in the article address the subject directly and indepth. Would you list some sources you found with SIGCOV for the subject discussing it as a group, not mentions about individual list items? // Timothy :: talk 16:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is well-sourced with commentary and explanation. Articles scope and make up is different from one cited in nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 30 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. WP:LISTN does not provide clear guidance here, and so I have to give larger weight than usual to the number of !votes that find this a useful list. If the sourcing problems highlighted by Czar are not fixed, a future AfD may be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled 3DO Interactive Multiplayer games

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

Please see the deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Sony consoles. Group noms haven't gone well for me in the past, so I am nominating other lists like this individually but the same rationale applies to each. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games for other noms. // Timothy :: talk 20:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - A redirect is better than getting this completely deleted... Roberth Martinez (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being nothing but a WP:GAMECRUFT magnet. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom rationale does not apply. The argument to delete on the other articles was that "List of cancelled games on <platforms by company>" was a bad scope, not "List of cancelled games on <platform>". TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is focused and well-sourced. At most, merge to List of 3DO Interactive Multiplayer games. IceWelder [✉] 11:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it sufficiently references some of the most notable games released and meets the scope of the relevant platform. Deltasim (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request for sources: @Deltasim, TarkusAB, and IceWelder: the subject of the article is "List of cancelled List of cancelled 3DO Interactive Multiplayer games", not an individual game. SIGCOV requires the subject be addressed directly and indepth. None of the sources in the article address the subject directly and indepth. Would you list some sources you found with SIGCOV for the subject discussing it as a group, not mentions about individual list items? // Timothy :: talk 16:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled Sega Genesis games. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, this is pretty far from "well-sourced". Follow any sampling of the refs: Many sources are plainly unreliable (GameFAQs, VGFacts, Assemblergames.com) and shouldn't be cited at all. Then take any of the magazine scans—the citation that the game is "canceled" says nothing of the sort. They link to one extremely brief mentions that a game is "coming soon" or demoed at a trade show. There is no evidence that the vast majority of these games were canceled, nevertheless that those cancellations received coverage, nevertheless that those cancellations were noteworthy enough as a group to warrant collection as a list. This list, just as the others nominated, attract original research edits that are antithetical to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory and a game being mentioned as in consideration for a platform is neither a defining trait or the defining basis for a notable grouping. czar 06:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is more like the types of articles that look like they’ll be kept more than the ones that have recently been deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IceWelder. Captain Galaxy 23:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missvain (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossrealms series

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

Non notable topic already rejected as a draft, fails WP:BOOKCRIT Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage to be found. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly G11. Looks to be self-published, and I can't find any coverage of the series, reliable or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Before endorsing the original PROD, I did a Google search and looked through a few pages of results. I did not find any significant coverage. Username 6892 20:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic misuse of Wikipedia for promotion. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11, possibly A7. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can merely prove that it exists, can't find anything suggesting notability; seems to be created for the sake of promoting the subject Spiderone 21:44, 29 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) 03:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Genian

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 20:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any claims in the article that meet WP:SOLDIER, nor does my search find anything. Jeepday (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled games for Nintendo consoles

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

Please see the deletion rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Sony consoles. Group noms haven't gone well for me in the past, so I am nominating other lists like this individually but the same rationale applies to each. // Timothy :: talk 20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge into appropriate articles. For example, the cancelled GameCube games could be merged into List of GameCube games and so on. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same arguments as for the Xbox & Sony AfDs. Where necessary, games for individual consoles can be merged to the lists for those consoles. IceWelder [✉] 20:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and arguments at Microsoft & Sony AFD, per IceWelder as well. -- ferret (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Icewelder, Ferret, and previous Microsoft and Sony AfDs. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per recent discussions and the arguments I made last time. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: While the cross-categorisation is a problem present, erasing notable cancelled games for that reason alone is excessive. Best to merge them to the respective platforms. Deltasim (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the best idea provided so far. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:42, 30 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) 18:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of goals scored by Lionel Messi

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - not a reasonable article; pure trivia. Excessively long (370KB with no references); it would be just as unreasonable with references, so I'm not bothering to draftify to ask for them to be added. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the same reasons as at this very similar AfD Spiderone 20:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 20:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolute insanity to have this level of detail about every single career goal scored by a player, even if it is one of the greatest of all time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although it's about one of the greatest players in football history, this endless statistics utterly fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, especifically point number 3.---Darius (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TROUT the creator. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just way more detail than is needed, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancelled games for Sony consoles

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

This is a followup AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cancelled games for Microsoft consoles which was closed by a panel as Delete. Previously a group AfD including List of cancelled video games, List of video games cancelled for Xbox consoles, List of video games cancelled for Nintendo consoles, List of video games cancelled for Sega consoles, List of video games cancelled for PlayStation consoles was closed as Delete.

For the same reasons given in the above AfDs, the list is not notable, fails WP:LISTN does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS discussing this as a group. References are to individual items, not SIGCOV as a group.

Since this is a simple list, the operative part of LISTN is, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.". Countless AfDs have affirmed a consensus that, barring some extenuating facts particular to a list, for a list to be notable it must be discussed as a group as stated in LISTN.

Regarding WP:LISTN This is not a case of a complex and cross-categorization list, it does not cross index multiple categories. If the article was "List of System A games also released on System B you have two categories crossed: A list for System A and another list for System B; you compare them and include (or exclude as the case may be) items based on the criteria established in the lead. This article is a simple list: cancelled games for Microsoft consoles. No other category is to cross indexed with it.

But if it is insisted that this is a cross-categorization list, then the list also fails WP:NOTDIR: "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." // Timothy :: talk 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same arguments as for the Xbox AfD. Where necessary, games for individual consoles can be merged to the lists for those consoles. IceWelder [✉] 19:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per same arguments as the Xbox AfD. -- ferret (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as the Xbox AfD. No sources talk about these cancelled games as a group or why they're an important aspect of any of these systems. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 19:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On another one of the AfDs it was pointed out that the previous deletes are not exactly the same. In the prior discussions, there was one AfD that used the company (most recent), four that used the console (older noms), and one that was a simple List of canceled games (older). I think their is a basic consensus from prior AfDs that lists of canceled games in general are usually not notable, which is why I thought conflating them was acceptable, but wanted to clairify this.
Delete per nom. Weird cross-categorization. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: While the cross-categorisation is a problem present, erasing notable cancelled games for that reason alone is excessive. Best to merge them to the respective platforms. Deltasim (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I will point out that Deltasim has split this article into separate ones (eg List of cancelled PlayStation video games List of cancelled PlayStation 2 video games), which is inappropriate given this is an ongoing AFD, and against the rationale put forth, that these lists are not well defined to start based on the Microsoft list closure. --Masem (t) 16:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Splitting them into separate articles is just for the purpose of preserving what would be eventually deleted and sourced information. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve those lists. Deltasim (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also a List of cancelled PlayStation Vita games that has the same problems and isn't filtered for notability. Anyway, I would support a merge per above. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bohemia Interactive. –Darkwind (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centauri Production

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

Previously redirected but now restored by a Czech IP with no other edits. The company seemingly fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Going through known reliable sources (via WP:VG/SE) only shows news bits either about the company's games or its acquisition by Bohemia Interactive. None of them constitutes "significant coverage" as GNG requires, rather WP:RUNOFTHEMILL.

The sources currently used in the article are mostly primary ones, except for #3/6/7, of which #6/7 are game announcement news and #3 is an interview. Versions in the Czech (native) and Russian versions of the article run afoul of the same issues. @Rosguill tagged the page as "Sources exist" but hasn't provided what sources these could be. IceWelder [✉] 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I remember coming across quite a few seemingly significant examples of coverage in Czech when I first reviewed this page, but looking again now I found only mere mentions. I think it's fairly likely that there's additional coverage offline in European gaming magazines, but in the absence of available coverage I don't think my hunch is enough to justify a keep vote. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the previous redirect was a good idea. There may not be "significant coverage", but there is still some good coverage. I'm okay with delete also, but ideally I would just restore the previous redirect.Edittac (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Military uniform. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform of the day

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

Seems to be a DICDEF with little chance to grow out of it. It is, however, remarkably hard to sort through search and comparable results, so its possible I missed something. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Military uniform and redirect. There are several google news results mentioning the phrase in passing so it's real and seemingly common; not worthy of its own article, seems like it would be worth a quick mention in that other article. ~EdGl talk 17:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Support merge and redirect as above. Oaktree b (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per above. Pilean (talk) 10:17, 31 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) 18:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Possinger

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

While he certainly got a lot of awards, and his local obituary claims that he was promised the MoH, he seems to have miraculously avoided getting any non-local coverage that would allow him to meet GNG, as his awards alone aren't quite enough for NSOLDIER or ANYBIO. Unfortunate, because he seems like a hero. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not comply with WP:NSOLDIER, or WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our actual inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG. Pilean (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arianna Dagnino

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

autobiography. Only reference is her own website. She's removed all the others. Rathfelder (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely WP:PROMO, with a WP:COI creator. Page has a history of WP:SPAM. No notable coverage found in a WP:BEFORE search. Creator of page has done much, it seems to keep this page from being deleted (eg. removing maintainence templates). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: By the way, keep in mind the pronouns used in your nom - the subject is a woman.

P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable works, awards or attention from reliable sources Spiderone 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be built on indepdent 3rd party sourcing, this article totally fails that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No major works or significant coverage. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Kriegel

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

Declined prod because it was contested on the talk page, due to the fact that it has a Polish wiki article. Zero in-depth coverage, so doesn't meet WP:GNG, and junior bridge players have no automatic qualification. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No useful coverage I could find, non-notable bridge player. Java Hurricane 02:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable bridge player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added various NYT article references to his page to show that he is notable for his journey to the silver medal in 2014 World Youth Championships. He has also had very high places in several North American Bridge Championships (NABCs). I can put them in the article if that would help. Do you want me to? Wikipedia asked me to translate articles, Oren's came up. I translated, added information, and now it is being requested to be deleted. May I ask the point of translating articles if they will just be nominated for deletion? He is a notable bridge player in the bridge playing community. In 2016, he was the non-playing captain for an Open team in the World Championships showing an immense responsibility^[1]. He also won a Collegiate Championship in 2015^[2] Oren also made the semifinals of the United States Bridge Championships - Open ^[3] Making the semifinals of the 2019 USBC should establish him if anything as a notable bridge player. The other names on his team:Ron Smith (bridge) John Diamond (bridge) Brian Platnick. They all have pages, as do most players in the semifinals. I can link those if required. Please let me know if this additional information about him helps with the decision. If not, what other information is needed to make him notable User:htberk Dec 22.

On 11/5/2020 Oren was the lead writer of a team that created a 189 page report to determine if bridge player Giorgio Duboin had been obtaining and using unauthorized information during online play. ^[4] ^[5]Notable authors on this report include Bob Hamman Steve Weinstein Nicolas Hammond Geir Helgemo. Clearly, Oren is a respected and notable bridge player and contributor to be on this anti-cheating investigation with other notable bridge players. I could also add information related to this report on Cheating in bridge if that would help. User:htberk Dec. 22

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Plenty of coverage from secondary sources. Seems notable to me. LeBron4 (talk) 17:08, 29 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. – Joe (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Corner, Virginia

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

Another name that appears rather late on the topos, it's not the least bit evident why this intersection got a name. Searching produces clickbait and name-drops, and one reference to it as a "hamlet", but since the source is a runner's guide describing it as a point passed through on a particular route, I'm not terribly impressed with its authority in that matter. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of anything notable here. –dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:05, 29 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) 03:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halcyon Molecular

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

Promotional page with some run-of-the-WP:MILL coverage. The startup existed for a brief time and went bankrupt without doing too much, and this page seems to only exist to name-drop the founders. It's not clear that anything more could be said about this company than the timeline this article presents. WP:ORGCRIT requires more than just the one Independent profile and coverage of financials and business actions. FalconK (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is now historical not promotional. The coverage such as The Anatomy of a Cutting-edge Start-up is quite detailed and such notability does not expire. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the one, though. There's not the sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources we'd hope for. FalconK (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And even that one is churnalism - a promotional interview masquerading as genuine journalism. Exactly the type of rubbish reference that WP:NCORP specifically excludes. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - refs (except one noted above) are routine trade notices about business transactions, not all of them are even about this company. - Bri.public (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV in multiple IS RS. Independent comes close. Fails GNG and ORGCRIT. // Timothy :: talk 01:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JGHowes ^talk 17:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do Stop, Kentucky

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

Rennick calls it a crossroads store. Topos show a small cluster of buildings. There are a couple newspapers.com results calling it a "community", but known describe it, the rest call it the "Do Stop" store. The store itself has an address in Caneyville. From what I can find, this has always been an informal neighborhood at a crossroads that formed around a store. Lacking any evidence of legal recognition, WP:GEOLAND is not met, and I don't think WP:GNG is, either. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing showing notability Jeepday (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GBooks yielded very little, mainly entries in lists of strange place names. GBooks did find [12], which I added to the article: George R. Stewart commented that Do Stop was "one of the few hortatory advertising names to have received recognition on an official map." (Stewart was the founder of the American Name Society). Newspapers.com found a few articles about property sold in Do-Stop, property sold in Do-Stop and others. Newspapers.com found an obit. I agree that people lived there. I found no legal recognition of Do Stop, so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. I found very little coverage and what I found was trivial, so #2 of WP:GEOLAND was not met. Cxbrx (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grayson County, Kentucky and redirect. Seems like it's not worthy of its own article per above, but, thanks to having sources, worth a mention in the county article. ~EdGl talk 18:38, 29 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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation International News

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

Fails WP:NCORP because there are no signficiant independent secondary WP:RS Theredproject (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

DELETE: fails the SIRS test The Ace in Spades (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
- The what? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Bushranger I had the same "what?". I found the relevant WP:SIRS.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've updated it with WP:RS. Thanks for keeping it, it's not a large company but it's always welcome to learn what is the background of a publisher often used as a ref in wikipedia. Cheers!--Marc Lacoste (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Marc Lacoste, Just to clarify, per this diff [13], the two sources you added are a Bloomberg business profile, and a press release? Theredproject (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Theredproject Jetcraft Aviation (a toll group subsidiary) + Bloomberg + a NBAA press release for an award the NBAA attributed. More clear in wikitext-diff maybe.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Marc Lacoste, so... an interview in a publication that itself is not notable, a routine business register listing that provides very little information, and a press release for an industry award that isn't mentioned on the page about the NBAA industry group. I appreciate your effort, but none of this meets the WP:SIRS requirements for WP:NCORP. Theredproject (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Of course it's a small business. The point is to link it in the publisher field within references.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. What coverage exists that is significant is either not reliable or not independent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Eggishorn How are Toll group, Bloomberg or the NBAA not reliable or not independent from AIN?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment more closely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for confirming those are reliable and independent. The parts supported by AIN itself could be questioned or even removed if you want.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to reach the threshold for WP:GNG in its present form. There is room for more text and refs, but what we have now is an acceptable start to build upon. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahunt, can you please specify which sources satisfy the WP:SIRS requirement? Theredproject (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also add that WP:NCORP is the appropriate guideline which describes what is required from references, none of which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic University Laboratory School & College

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

Not a notable school & college. Fails in passing WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field." WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This institute used to arrange cultural programme and Its result is very good but haven't any link in internet. Prodipto Deloar (Talk) 08:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Prodipto! This school try to manage various cultural programme, this school result, teachers quality, lab facilities is very well. You may keep it. Atikengwiki32 (Talk) 23:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent contribution, new account! Thank you! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trim to Islamic University, Bangladesh: Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field.". The content will fit well into the target article and improve it. As a stand alone article, the subject does not have WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and in depth. // Timothy :: talk 08:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

TimothyBlue A lot of non-English references are cited. What is your reason for arguing it doesn't have WP:SIGCOV?VR _talk 19:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IUB. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:04, 29 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. –Darkwind (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soumitra Bannerjee

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

No sources to backup page and seems unnotable. Setreis (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable person : Soumitra Bannerjee was a notable actor in Bengali Film Industry. He was one of the most popular negative role character in Bengali cinema. He had worked over 150 Bengali films. He was a gem of Bengali film industry in 80s and 90s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsaikat (talk • contribs) 08:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and popular Bengali film actor who acted over 150 films. He may not be widely covered in the national (english) tabloids. Better information is available on imdb ^[6]RationalPuff (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Four ACBL teams remain in world championships | American Contract Bridge League". Retrieved 2020-12-22.
^ "College bridge team wins national championship". www.chicagomaroon.com. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
^ Martel, Jan. "2019 Open USBC Semi Final Results | 2019 Open USBC Results | 2019 Open USBC | PAST USBF TOURNAMENTS - United States Bridge Championships (USBC)". United States Bridge Federation (USBF). Retrieved 2020-12-22.
^ "The Hand Records Speak: Giorgio Duboin". Bridge Winners. 2020-11-05. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
^ "Report on Giorgio Duboin". Google Docs. Retrieved 2020-12-22.
^ https://m.imdb.com/name/nm1548032/bio

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a popular villain. RationalPuff has said it better. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a very popular villain. He was mentioned heavily in all notable printed Bengali newspapers and magazines in 1980s and early 1990s, of which internet version don't exist. He passed away at young age, before Bengali newspapers had digital version. New york times had digital version even for 1899 news. Bengali started having digital just few years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.196.27 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty one years ago - So many news in one page. https://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000110/nation.htm

"Bengali actor dead CALCUTTA: Noted Bengali actor Soumitra Banerjee died here on Saturday after protracted illness. He was 46. Soumitra was admitted to hospital on January 4 in a serious condition. Soumira had begun his career at the age of eight in "Subha and Debatar Grass" in 1964. He later went on to play the role of villains in about 150 films since the early’ 80s. His films included "Troi", "Gurudakshina", "Amar Sangi", "Ashirwad" and "Indrajit" among others. His last film was "Khelaghar". — UNI" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1112:B751:F451:327A:7422:8EAA (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JGHowes ^talk 17:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lesmahagow High School

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

Doesn't seems to pass WP:GNG for school. Pilean (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am looking at www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk which seems to tick all the boxes. Scotland is outside my comfort zone- devolution and different legal system- so I can't say how independent the governors of the school, ( thus the subject ) are from the LEA. The LEA have left us with a superb inspection report that the school was required to publish.

This is merely an underdeveloped notable article. A spot of reading of WP:WPSCH/AG may help ClemRutter (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in article are not IS RS (school and gov), or are commmon local news stories that do not show notability. BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 12:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Timothy- could you please study what I posted above- WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV- all was covered by www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk, Deletions of UK schools rarely succeed because the existence of independant inspections/reports (by law). The phrase 'run of the mill' indicates that a lack of understanding of the subject area. We have many area in Wikipedia that are tedious to many- but we just don't try editibng there. ClemRutter (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is one of the only high schools in South Lanarkshire to not have it’s own page. The sources include it’s website, South Lanarkshire's website and the Daily Record. If you look at other high school pages their only sources are from their website, their council's website or the Daily Record. The school is notable, its page is just (like someone wrote above) undeveloped. Sahaib (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not relieve similar articles from notability guidelines; that other pages also lack notability is not a reason to keep. Three of the sourced are not WP:IS and cannot establish notability. The remaining three are about a construction project (practically every school has construction), an article about a student that went to the school that got into Oxford (notability is not inherited, does not address the subject directly and in depth per WP:SIGCOV), and an article about a Career Week event. This is a good school, but that isn't a criteria for an article. // Timothy :: talk 14:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are reliable; the school's website is not independent but others are. Some of coverage looks insignificant, but unlike many articles in Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) it isn't about something only established recently, so it's likely that most coverage is not online. Practically every building is designed and constructed, so does that mean coverage of these is not significant? If there is coverage it's probably a significant building - schools are not only an "organisation, corporation, or product". Peter James (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sourcing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes the school exists, yes the references support what is in the article. But the hurdle here is WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG and there is nothing to make this school any more notable then most of the schools of the world. While the keep arguments are nice, they do not show that the school meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Jeepday (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply : There is nothing in the WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG that says that a school has to be more notable than any other. Wikipedia uses the word notable to refer the quality of its reference not in the way it is used in conversation- it doesn't have to be famous, or have notoriety. Following each of those guidelines (which are shortcuts to the same document), you are taken to WP:GNG which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list".ClemRutter (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply @ClemRutter: per WP:ORG "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." it would seem that you believe the coverage is not trivial, and that is fine. That is why we have the Afd process, we all express our views on how things apply. When you say "There is nothing in the WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG that says that a school has to be more notable than any other" I think you are missing WP:ORGSIG "No inherent notability" Local papers write about local schools, that is what makes the coverage trivial and non notable in my opinion. You see it differently and that is fine. Jeepday (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply @Jeepday:. Local papers write about local schools, that coverage trivial is normally trivial. I have no time for concerts or fun runs. A statutory notice of planning application would not be trivial- if the paper employed real reporters and wasn't just an advertising rag, and even then I would expect a fair amount of focused copy. We are not talking about newspapers here. The level of detail needed to fulfil WP:GNG is far lower than that needed to justify a reference. WP:ORGIN is remarkably broad! The existence of government funding guarentees that published reports by a third party exist. But you mention the two part WP:ORGSIG paragraph beneath it.
    No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists
    
    It has received significant coverage from Lanarkshire, and in the published inspectors reports- it is not relying on a presumption that it should by considered notable because the school on the other side of the valley was notable.
    
    "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it. , has a corollary No matter how "unimportant" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should be entitled to a stand-alone article in Wikipedia when reliable sources independent of the organization that give significant coverage to it have been found.
    
    I am genuinely pleased that you got back to us here as it has directed me to the ambiguous text. There are many stubs on schools still to be improved- and four more Lanarkshire schools articles to be started. As for the locality, it is 600 kms from me and I am not likely ever to visit it. Is over the border (different legal system and customs) and I try to keep my editing more local. ClemRutter (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coverage found via newspapers.com is a reason to keep articles about similarly notable American topics, and this is usually local - more could be found if the UK had a National Digital Newspaper Program. Peter James (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - In England the schools database is GIAS and though I haven't tried it I believe education.gov.scot/parentzone/find-a-school does the same job.ClemRutter (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on independent coverage: We look for independent coverage because when a publisher chooses to cover a topic they have no connection to it suggests the subject is notable. When a government agency produces a report that they must produce for every school they are not independently choosing to report on any particular school. Therefore it is not an indication of notability. Gab4gab (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The meaning of independent is not having a conflict of interest, for example in promoting it. Similar coverage is enough - places recognised in censuses for example. Peter James (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Peter James:.: There can be coverage that appears to be independent but because it is indiscriminate it tells us nothing about the notability of what it covers.

If Bass Player Magazine includes coverage of a particular bass player that can be helpful to that players notability. In theory the magazine independently chooses who to cover and does not attempt to cover every bass player. They choose to cover noteworthy subjects.

Suppose a government agency provides coverage of particular school by producing a report. That could be helpful to that schools' notability if the agency freely selects significant schools to report on. However, if the agency is required to produce reports for all schools in their territory, they don't have the independence to select their subjects. In that case the report is not helpful to notability because the publisher indiscriminately covered all schools.

Similarly, suppose a government agency produces a yearly report on every registered charity. The report for each charity is simply evidence that it is a registered charity. It says nothing about that charity's notability.

There is some discussion of indiscriminate sources at WP:INDEPENDENT.

Notability of places recognised in censuses is an example of topics covered in the gazetteer aspect of Wikipedia. We do not generally consider school under geographic features guidelines although school buildings can be notable under that criteria. Gab4gab (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside. Doesn't WP:INDEPENDENT give an example of independent and reports

Examples of independent and non-independent sources for some common subjects
You're writing about…	Independent	Non-independent
a business	News media, government agency	Owner, employees, corporate website or press release, sales brochure, competitor's website

. Using a rule of thumb, five hundred students at 5000UKP a child (250 000) +100 000 block grant, on the revenue account plus the recent capital expenditure this is a very sizable business too. ClemRutter (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that table is there, followed by the section on 'Relationship to notability' which says this: "Some sources, while apparently independent, are indiscriminate sources. For example, a travel guide might attempt to provide a review for every single point of interest, restaurant, or hotel in a given area." and this: "If a subject, such as a local business, is only mentioned in indiscriminate independent sources, then it does not qualify for a separate article on Wikipedia, but may be mentioned briefly in related articles (e.g., the local business may be mentioned in the article about the town where it is located)." It's an explanatory supplement that I find helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With ATD of Merge to town or county article (see below). Fails ORG and GNG. Just a non-notable school. www.educationbase.co.uk, is NOT independent. Aside from flowery words the "ABOUT US" link was written by the school and contains words like "Although we" and "our pupils". Another source is about a high-jacked Facebook page, a link to the student handbook, a "Parent-and-Pupil-Booklet", and a South Lanarkshire Council published "Follow-through report". One Daily Record reports on a Hamilton Advertiser’s reporter and photographer visiting the school for career day. Another is a report on "elections of school captains and vice captains". These sources, while acceptable for article content, do not advance notability. If this were true then common news reporting types of sources would mean that every high school, over 24,000 in the U.S., over 300 in Scotland, over 4,000 in England, almost 14,000 in China, and an untold number the world over, would qualify for an article. If this is not the actual intent it would be the unintended consequence. Otr500 (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The process here is to decide whether there is enough material to justify the inclusion of the article. This is Scotland, which has a different legal and education system. You are right about several of the trivial sources you mention, the article is a stub and poor, facebook reference would need to go to get it beyond a start. I don´t know where the reference to www.educationbase.co.uk comes from- certainly not been used here to show WP:GNG and not in the article.

You are wrong about the South Lanarkshire "Follow-through report" reference. If you read it carefully you will see it is a response to a HMI report that is no longer on line. This is sufficient for WP:GNG. It shows that the business has been the subject to a national report. The term "Follow-through report" is the legal term, and requirement. I share your despair about roving photographers, but to use this evidence we would need 'substantial coverage'. We do have 4000 + notable schools in the UK- that is a lot of work. Love to see you join in and turn this stub in to a well written B or better.ClemRutter (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: Greetings. The follow-through report is a primary source that does not advance notability. I didn't see a "HMI report". I would like to see lots of articles "all about Scotland". The aggregate of the multiple sources need to provide reliable as well as significant and independent coverage for a stand alone article. Content does not determine notability. The articles Lesmahagow (town) and Lanarkshire (county) are both start-class that could use an "Education" section so the school could have Wikipedia coverage. In our quest to make Wikipedia the "largest encyclopedia in history" we don't need to lose sight of the fact that coverage in another article does not mean a subject is not notable (especially locally or regionally) just possibly not notable enough for a stand alone article. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added merge as an WP:ATD per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that others and the closer might consider. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More than 200 high schools in Connecticut already have articles; that's a state with just over 1% of the U.S. population. American high school articles are usually kept at AFD. It's interesting to look at the articles created by some of the editors who support deletion here - stubs with less content and fewer sources than here, but about American topics. I don't know if that is relevant to why this is at AFD - the nominator is a sockpuppet and I don't know what their purpose is yet - but it looks like different standards are being applied. Peter James (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. @Otr500: I think we are seeing the Follow up report] through different spectacles. It is a proud achievement of the UK government, that organisations are required to publish policies and third party reports on themselves on their websites. Beneficial but awkward for Wikipedia as a school website and its webaddress may just be 'notice board' where our WP:RS are stored. *"What maintained schools must publish online". GOV.UK. Retrieved 6 October 2020. However, the school and council are separate legal bodies.

On the first page of Follow up document we have the statement:

BackgroundLesmahagow High School was inspected by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIe) in November 2009. Following the publication of the report in January 2010 the Head Teacher and staff prepared an action plan to address the main recommendations.The school is part of the Lesmahagow Learning Community within Clydesdale. The Head of Education (Clydesdale) reviewed progress with the Action Plan and submitted an evaluation of the school’s progress in response to the HMIe inspection report.

It is clear that a report on the school has been published- WP:N. We are left with a dilemma, WP:N states.

Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

WP:NPOSSIBLE Also,

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

At this moment we can prove that the "significant coverage" had existed but due our location and the distance in time we cannot access it on line.

I do think that Wikipedia is a little behind reality. We are lead by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and it is interesting to speculate how fare the Follow up document can be used in its own right. I conclude it can. This is the publication of the comment (tertiary) on the review (secondary) of a primary source. Here is the policy quote:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

Yes all this is considered before we embark on a new article- this one is particularly interesting as it is in Scotland and most of our experience is in England. There are 17 secondary schools in South Lanarkshire in their learning communities so please do get more deeply involved so we can head off this discussions in future. Best wishes for a safe corvid free future. ClemRutter (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reading through all the discussion and looking over the sourcing it appears that this school lacks the multiple in-depth reliable independent sources it needs to pass WP:GNG and WP:NORG. As they all seem to either trivial or connected to the school somehow. Which doesn't cut it for the standards of notability. That said if someone is able to provide three good, independent, in-depth, reliable sources I will be more then willing to change my vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse to request: Roy Smiths three is useful at times- but there are 17 references here already, without adding more. I have written paragraphs on the significance of HMI Reports, and Follow up Reports- principally for editor not familiar with the UK system where the school is an independent legal identity. There is nothing in policy that says 3 references are needed- but with the help of the Daily Record we have the human interest story that would make a great DYK hookm to add to the HMI and the Follow up report. Bingo. And that does make the three. Of course we have avoided looking for more material on the school website which I would be reticent to use directly. Here on our page we have sources but not a lot of article to hang them onto. Content provision is the priority. ClemRutter (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough notable coverage for a school, in my opinion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to ClemRutter's WP:HEY additions, including Daily Record (Scotland) articles and the HMI "Follow-through report - Lesmahagow High School", a resource that is secondary, not primary. It is required by the Scottish Qualifications Authority, part of Scotland's highly regarded universal public education system, different from those in the other countries of the United Kingdom. Such reports by national oversight agencies are significnt, substantial "reliable, independent, and secondary sources".Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is an organization that administrators exams to students in any way independent of the institutions who's students it's administering the exams to? Especially since both are ran by the Scottish government. Scottish Qualifications Authority isn't a private oversight organization or anything. It's ran and payed for by the same people that run and pay for the schools. The Scottish government. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Lanarkshire council's education authority is not run by the Scottish government. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Adamant1: You are about 20% correct in your description of the SQA as "an organization that administrators exams to students". I'm reminded of Pope's admonishment, "A little learning is a dang'rous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring." The Education (Scotland) Act 1996 mandates accreditation of education and training establishments as one of SQA's 5 general functions. SQA's website description of the Accreditation Committee notes members are "from industry and training providers independent of SQA Accreditation". Further, SQA Accreditation has been certified by Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance. Accreditors of Scottish schools function the same way external auditors of business corporations function: they provide unvarnished assessments of an institution from an independent point of view. The HMIe reports they produce are reliable, secondary sources. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although after doing quite a bit of editing on this, then looking back to the original edits and seeing what a premature move of content into article space took place, I can see why the article was nominated. The mentions of Daily Record (Scotland) articles as sources are not strictly correct- The Daily Record website hosts content from multiple local papers- at least two of the references used in this article appear to be from the Hamilton Advertiser. But this coverage does appear to go beyond trivial mention and thus establish that the subject meets the relatively low bar of significance accepted for the schools, via WP:ORG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it Interesting you say that about the Scottish Daily Record. I guess I did not look at the sources clearly enough. However, at least one source from that newspaper seems to be at the national level, meaning that it may meet WP:AUD. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I waited until now to cast my !vote. There have been tremendous improvements to the article since this article was first nominated for deletion. I do not think this article would have been nominated if the article was published in this state. The sources in Scottish Daily Record alone seem to be enough for the article to satisfy WP:GNG. However, most of the other sources do not, because they are not independent (the Facebook source is local) or reliable (the demolition page looks self-published). I'm unsure as to whether the HMI report is independent though. Regardless, this school is notable enough for inclusion IMO, but barely. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a bit more to the article. There is certainly content and sources there which I would remove as run of the mill, but that does not require deletion of the article. I agree that the HMI Inspection report is an independent, reliable and significant source. We don't have it referenced directly but the action plan shows that it exists. The local history book, At the Crossroads of Time, has some decent coverage. I think that there are very likely to be print sources which cover the school in some detail. There is a lot we don't know from online sources - for instance, its date of establishment (it could be a development of to the eighteeth-century school referenced here in an article about William Smellie (obstetrician)); but it's a school of importance to the community over a long period of time, and with at least four notable ex-pupils, so I think WP:NPOSSIBLE applies. I did find some early twentieth-c local newspaper reports of the appointment of headteachers of the school, which I think is not trivial in the way that fun runs would be - I haven't added links to those because, without a clearer timeline of the history of the school, I think throwing in a ref to eg the appointment of a head in 1918 would just be confusing. Tacyarg (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sam Denby#Half as Interesting. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia List

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

I don't think this is a valid disambiguation page. I don't see evidence of the term "That Wikipedia List" referring to Wikipedia:Unusual articles outside of the mentioned 2016 Youtube series, and that doesn't have an article of its own. I'm not sure a redirect to Sam Denby (the Youtube channel's creator) makes sense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sam Denby#Half as Interesting, where it's discussed briefly. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, wasn't sure if it should be a redirect or a disambiguation. This doesn't need to go through the whole process, unless power~enwiki is completely opposed to a redirect. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - UA has almost nothing to do with the title of the list and the video series doesn't have a page. We should delete until the video series has an article, otherwise this page is unhelpful. Koridas 📣 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sam Denby#Half as Interesting per User:Hog Farm. It doesn't matter if the video series doesn't have a page yet; redirects to article sections are common. ~EdGl talk 21:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manuk Hergnyan

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

Résumé-like WP:BLP of an economist and investor, referenced entirely to his own self-published content with no evidence of independent reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, the notability test is not the things the subject says about himself, it's the things journalists do or don't say about him in the third person in real media — that is, you don't make a person notable for creating print or film content by referencing said content to itself as proof that it exists, you make a person notable for that by referencing it to other people doing independent third party analysis of its significance. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia articles are meant to be built on works about someone, not on works by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this likely vanity page. Nothing in this article is appropriate; Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. FalconK (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete delete, delete, delete. This is promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Estate Wine and Beer

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

I don’t think being rated the best beer retailer in the world by ratebeer.com in 2010 demonstrates notability, so topic does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- same reason as mentioned by Mccapra Eyebeller (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone find any sources that support GNG? Anyone spend anytime researching if this bar or restaurant is notable outside of what's in the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Wake Mommy

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, has a handful of blog-style WP:SPS reviews but no notable reviews, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lily-Rose Aslandogdu

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

Non notable actress, Found this and this however that's it. Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR #1 and #3 and Fails GNG, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's had two acting roles, only one of which seems semi-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Might become notable in the future, but certainly WP:TOOSOON now. --bonadea contributions talk 09:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable yet. – DarkGlow (✉) 13:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am seeing no basis in policy for most of the "keep" !votes. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SerenityOS

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

Note: original 2nd nomination by Gellopai here, but did not set up a new AfD discussion. Redone by me. Original nomination (?) statement: This is still not a relevant project and does not have any media coverage. --Gellopai (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This was draftified following the previous AfD discussion, but that was immediately undone by Asliturk, and apparently nobody noticed. So basically this constitutes an end-run around the AfD outcome and should probably just be re-draftified. As far as I can tell it still sports the exact same references as before, insufficient for demonstrating substantial coverage. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found my way to the SerenityOS page after it was featured on the most recent CppCast podcast (https://cppcast.com/serenity-os/). CppCast is one of the biggest, possibly the biggest, C++ podcast but I do not know if that qualifies as "media coverage"? I understand SerenityOS is a hobby project for Andreas Kling however it seems the project has a reasonable number of contributors regularly being discussed on platforms such as reddit and Hacker News. A quick search on reddit shows almost 150 articles over the past couple of years for example. Naturally one would look to Wikipedia for more information on the project so I think it warrants keeping as it seems to have the momentum to continue growing. Perhaps re-evaluate in a year? -Morgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB14:3E3:FC00:199B:891B:541C:BE84 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit is not a reliable source for establishing notability. SK2242 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only coverage is from Hackaday - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a project that has obvious relevance, even now in the early development stages. I can find a link on Hacker News for this os as well. Deleting this page now simply means having to restore it, or worse, rewrite it in 5 years when more people start finding it. Avindratalk / contribs 20:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying what I feel is obvious: it boots, has graphics, has a web browser, and is built by an ex-WebKit developer: https://webkit.org/blog/author/kling/ Even if it doesn't move beyond the status of a hobby OS, it's completeness will remain as a point of reference for those engaged in OS development. Avindratalk / contribs 21:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This project wiki should be kept, regardless of it has enough media coverage or not. Among tech community and specifically among OS Dev community SerenityOS is a well respected project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhavalhirdhav (talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhavalhirdhav: That’s not how it works. See WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a new open source project of no particular notability. Media coverage on FOSS-related websites alone doesn't establish notability, and there is nothing that particularly distinguishes this one or sets it apart from any number of other hobbyist/project operating systems that are in pre-alpha status but will never go on to achieve much in the way of usage share (e.g. technical innovation.) The fact that it exists and could also theoretically work as a point of reference for developers of operating systems also does not establish notability (the same applies to many, many other projects) nor does it justify inclusion on Wikipedia. If and when it achieves some form of notability beyond being a curiosity it should get an article, but Wikipedia is not a site for open source projects of no real renown to be advertised. Foonblace (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be a spike in visitors to this page (2.9K in last 30 days), which is surprisingly high for a niche project. As such, the deleted article should be replaced with a redirect (which I don't want to write at the moment). Scraimer (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that spike have something to do with it being listed for deletion? Foonblace (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid keep rationale. Page views are not a measure of notability. SK2242 (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral de-draftications right after AFD closes earn blocks for disruption. Nothing substantive has changed since that time. Delete rather than draft this time given the clear disruption. --Izno (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JGHowes ^talk 17:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K C Mittal

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Presented sources are passing mentions, not enough to establish notability. Hitro talk 15:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 15:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 15:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 15:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP: meets BASIC, JUDGE and POLITICIAN The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
Weak keep - while an essay is not policy, if everything is true, then he could pass my standards for lawyers. He's been the president of a large bar association, member of various civic and political committees, and has attracted some notice in the media. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not too well acquainted w/ Indian media outlets, but this guy seems to get a lot of passing mention (e.g. The Tribune, New India Express, Hindustan Times, The Hindu). NickCT (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:58, 29 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 and move to Death of Alexander Taraikovsky. –Darkwind (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Taraikovsky

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not notable per WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E (recently deceased). The person does not warrant a standalone article. --IWI (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. --IWI (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move - This seems like it should be moved to Death of Alexander Taraikovsky or Killing of Alexander Taraikovsky. NickCT (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Alexander Taraikovsky is to a degree equivalent to George Floyd in Belarus; a separate page is designated to George Floyd on Wikipedia. Alexander Taraikovsky's death was highly publicized internally and internationally. --Partizan Kuzya (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Alexander Taraikovsky was the first victim of the riot police during the first peaceful protest in Belarus against rigged elections in August 2020. His death sparked even more protests that has been ongoing until today. He became a key figure in the current struggle of the Belarusian people for freedom. Several innocent people were sentenced to prison in Belarus for trying to commemorate him. --Sombrik (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Meets WP:GNG. Has had plenty of coverage in the news, as well as in international media, and not to mention the impact that his death has had in Belarusian society. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the first killed during the protests in Belarus in 2020. There is a huge interest in his personality. Plus a huge amount of mentions in the press. Vit; talk 08:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Thousands of people gathered to lay down flowers on the place where Taraikovsky was killed. Tikhanovskaya named a list of people who need to be sanctioned in honor of him. Obviously he is an important figure in the modern history of Belarus.--KastusK (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did any of you even read WP:VICTIM or WP:BLP1E? You don't seem to even address this and instead say it meets GNG so that's okay. All of the sources refer to one event. Someone notable for one event is usually not notable for Wikipedia, and this person appears to be no exception. I believe WP:RECENTISM also applies here. --IWI (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: - Understandably frustrating. But don't let it get you down. I think if you're someone with an interest in the region, this guy seems like a pretty major character. NickCT (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More frustrated that a non-notable person will have an article due to a large number of biased votes. I have no issue in keeping it if they had demonstrated that he is indeed notable, but nothing has demonstrated he meets the criteria at WP:VICTIM or WP:BLP1E. Claims that he can be compared to George Floyd are clearly incorrect. The protests were already happening before his death. A mention of him can be made there, but the kind of impact we saw in the US with George Floyd was clearly much larger. WP:VICTIM is pretty clear about what should happen here. --IWI (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean one of the arguments above is that people laid flowers for him. They did the same for Breonna Taylor, but she does not have her own article. Possibly an article could cover the "Death of Alexander Taraikovsky", but his own article? No. Follow the guidelines. --IWI (talk) 04:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One need not forget that it is not plausible to compare the magnitude and coverage of the events in Belarus to the US. Belarus is a repressed, unnoticed 9.5 million country that still does not have freedom of speech, free and independent press, or influence on the rest of the world; the US is a domineering world culture of 330 million whose news and turbulence are broadcasted imminently around the globe. The expectations that Taraikovsky’s name will be on the minds of each global denizen is unfortunately far from reality; however, he is well-known to every Belarussian. Many unpublicized protests in Belarus and other countries (see the reason above why “unpublicized”) originated and are underway due to his death.

The BLM protests were happening before George Floyd’s murder, but the current protest conflagrated around Floyd’s and others’ deaths (e.g., Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner). Taraikosvy was murdered on August 10th. His death -- along with the rampant torture -- changed the attitude and attendance of protests significantly. The very fact that the police can shoot a peaceful person directly into the heart freed people from fear; an inert layer of the population -- the older generation -- took it to the streets and became active. Belarusians are very sensitive to others’ pain because they are raised to respect the suffering of their ancestors during WWII; the history of extermination is deeply engraved into Belarussians through education and epigenetics. Taraikovksy is a personification of this pain to Belarusians.Partizan Kuzya (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The event of his death is notable, so why don’t we just move this to "Death of...", since it only discusses his death? We have the Killing of George Floyd and George Floyd. --IWI (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. And move to Death of... BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2020 Belarusian protests#Deaths. There was a substantial amount of international coverage, but I am not convinced that the coverage is sufficiently persistent for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. See WP:BLP1E. Taraikovsky is not significant in isolation - only as a part of the broader crackdown against protesters by the Lukashenko government. In such a case, the material belongs in the broader article, which in this case is 2020 Belarusian protests. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form, "political" deaths is a bit different than most criminal and accidental deaths. Probably more resemblant (albeit not totally) of Benno Ohnesorg than George Floyd; since the Ohnesorg topic is located at "Shooting at..." this page should probably be moved to a similar title. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

→Why was the page moved without the consesus? Who made the decision? There was no clear consesus! Partizan Kuzya (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Theo Klemesrud

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E. Most of the article consists of WP:OR with inadequate sourcing (such as usenet posts and WP:SPS). A WP:BEFORE finds no evidence of notability for the individual outside of the Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc. case. As most of the content fails verifiability, I think it should be blanked and redirected to Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is inaccurate. The tag is making the case based of the name "Tom Theo Klemesrud" when that is not his known name. Take for instance the Scholar tab. The search with the false name only brings up one article. But if you search it with the correct name, "Tom Klemesrud" this is the result you get – five Google pages of citations. User Klemesrud has stated that he does not want his middle name used because he is not known by the string "Tom Theo Klemesrud." A correct search would yield these results: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=%22Tom+Klemesrud%22&btnG= This same error is repeated for every category of research listed. This proposal for deletion is a sham based on untruths. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rhetorical strawman argument. You user:Schazjmd create your strawman by falsely defining an article and then go to try to burn that article down by false sourcing tabs. What you've done here is false and should be opposed. And you do it with hard to follow circuitous codes and links. Disingenuous to the max. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hard to find any mention in RS. Article apparently started by someone with a specific interest in Scientology. NickCT (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this individual is not notable enough to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Fair Game article, otherwise this person seems to be a run-of-the-mill journalist. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You, user:Schazjmd, recently deleted my contribution for this page in the writings section, saying the text of this court filing was not reliable. The filed declaration came from attorney Richard Horning and it is ok to contact and verify with him. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/professionals/h/horning-richard-allan

Also Shari Steele at EFF can verify it. The case and file was on the EFF server, but was accidently destroyed. https://www.eff.org/about/staff/shari-steele Seen here on BBC-2 ... //youtu.be/b6KM27TUsvM?t=367

The declaration is also on Pacer of course. The case is published. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc , No. 95-20091 RHW, 1995 Comp. Ind. L. Rptr. 20214, 20292, 20357, 20380, 20435 (N.D.Cal. 1995), 907 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D.Ca. 1995) 71.29.113.108 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I said a file on google docs was not reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, I want you to know that I am 70 years old approaching an end-of-life situation, and that I consider what you are here – trying to cancel me – Delete my Wikipedia page that I've had for 13 years. I have hearts in lung problems that are terminal.

I consider your actions to be cyber bullying of a disabled senior citizen, by psychologically terrorizing an old, sick man whom you say is a "run-of-the-mill journalist" – when I spent all my life in radio and TV broadcasting, most recently 28 years as a videotape editor for some of the highest rated Hollywood shows. I only took over my parents newspaper in order to keep it going, to salvage their legacy.– threatening to take away my legacy that I worked hard to establish all my life. And if it doesn't stop, I'm going to report you to federal authorities that I have come through the years of knowing on a first name basis. And please don't consider that a threat, but next course of action Included in this would also be Muboshgu who I believe started this whole thing because I objected on the Georgia Secretary of State's page saying there was no election fraud in Georgia that today has been proven. I want you to knock it off, please. I am going to try to forward this also to Liz and NickCT, do you consider Amazon.com's international movie database IMDB.com as an unreliable source? There you will find many of my accomplishments that are fact checked and provided by the studios to IMDb. Just click on that link on my page you are colluding to remove. ANI Here is the link to my attorney. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/professionals/h/horning-richard-allan my talk page Tomklem (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for your troubles. Nothing about this is personal, only about applying the policies of Wikipedia to determine whether there should be this stand-alone article. (We do not consider IMdB a reliable source, by the way.) Schazjmd (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page alive and running. Do not delete. From Tom Padgett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:486:200:DDD0:2420:320F:9B51:5039 (talk) 08:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, you have my name wrong as far as book citations. I am known as Tom Klemesrud; not Tom Theo Klemesrud. If you were to search with my real name then you would find these book references
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22Tom+Klemesrud%22 there are 10 google pages of book references for me. Please use my correct name that I am known by. When I tried to correct this, Schazjmd reverted the corrections. Tomklem (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With a little more effort searching the news you might find pages like this http://www.xenu-directory.net/news/library.php?mf=1&yf=&mt=12&yt=&t=Tom+Klemesrud or https://web.archive.org/web/20090315000000*/tom%20klemesrud or here https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=tom+klemesrud&t=4312 Tomklem (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reverted because the changes were made incorrectly, breaking the format of the AfD template. If the article is kept, a discussion can be had as to whether to rename it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - In all honesty user:Schazjmd you are being a bit disingenuous. Why did you support your deletion proposal by searching "Tom Theo Klemesrud" when he is not known by that name? As far as your recent revert, why didn't you just change his article page to his known name of "Tom Klemesrud" rather than suggesting he doesn't know the secret code? My opinion is you have it out for the guy. 209.216.92.228 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Keep/oppose deletion. 209.216.92.228 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC) (Duplicate !vote. Already !voted above "oppose/keep 71.29.113.108 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)) -- Valjean (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
      - I searched by both forms of the name, and everything I found is in relation to the Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc. case. But, then you only included in your tag, the false data Tomklem (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:BLP1E, which explains the basis of my nomination. Schazjmd (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I am confused. Which "single Event are you talking about? The blood assault on Jan. 14,1995, all documented by the police; or the service of a lawsuit on Feb. 8 1995; or Judge Whyte's ruling November 22, 1995 that gave safe harbors to all ISP's (like Wikipedia); or the 17 years of Scientology fair gaming ruination attempts by the Scientology cult? Or, is that event the one in 1984 when I reported the MCCS tax fraud to the IRS CID that began the unraveling of this criminal cult? Which user:Schazjmd is that single event? Tomklem (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I am also asking User:Schazjmd to revert this Article back to it's original name, "Tom Klemesrud', and take all instances of my middle name, and the string "Tom Theo Klemesrud" out of it. Tomklem (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable self-promotion article by COI-conflicted editor who now makes legal threats above. -- Valjean (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Valjean you must point out where that legal threat is, for evaluation. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here you threaten everyone who votes delete and Muboshgu: "I'm going to report you to federal authorities that I have come through the years of knowing on a first name basis. And please don't consider that a threat, but next course of action Included in this would also be Muboshgu who I believe started this whole thing". Don't issue any kind of threat. It has a chilling effect and is uncollegial. -- Valjean (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep/Oppose object to deletion. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (Duplicate !vote. Already !voted above "oppose/keep 71.29.113.108 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)) -- Valjean (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

WP Guidlines

"Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. It is an easier method of removing articles or files than the articles for deletion (AfD) or files for discussion (FfD) processes, and is meant for uncomplicated deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion..." And, this proposed deletion is as controversial and complicated as can be. If one were to give this article a fair hearing, you would find that this is where the legal concept of safe harbors for Internet service providers began. It began with Tom Klemesrud's declaration to the federal court of judge Ronald M Whyte. It culminated in Judge White's ruling in November 1995 that gave safe-harbor protection from liability to Internet service providers for what their users might post. California Congressman Christopher Cox relied on this ruling in the creation of section 230 of the communications Decency Act of 1996. It was from this Netcom case – Klemesrud's declaratory stance – that user:Schazjmd, reverted, with the novel claim that a legal document submitted by way of Google Drive, was not a reliable source. These case documents are all over the Internet, and can be found on the US Courts Pacer service. It was Klemesrud's declaratory stance, and Judge Whyte's rulings, that were codified into United States code for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, also.

It should not go unnoticed that Wikipedia itself could not exist without these legal safe-harbor liability protections. Neither could YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, or any other Internet service that allows third-party user input into a public forum. This attempt to erase Internet history should not be supported because of Klemesrud's political leanings in support of Donald Trump. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just want to point that this isn't PROD, this is AfD. Thanks. Eyebeller 10:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say that in plain laguage? Tomklem (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from below as these comments belong here. Tom, you are simply mistaken, as explained by User:Eyebeller. This is an AFD, not a PROD. BTW, there is nothing about this that has to do with your "political leanings in support of Donald Trump." -- Valjean (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose/keep object. 71.29.113.108 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC) (Duplicate !vote. Already !voted above "oppose/keep 71.29.113.108 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)) -- Valjean (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Relevance?

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[Citation] ... Importantly, the court held

that:

     "[w]here a BBS operator cannot reasonably verify a claim of
     infringement, either because of a possible fair use defense, the
     lack of copyright notices on the copies, or the copyright holder's
     failure to provide the necessary documentation to show that there
     is a likely infringement, the operator's lack of knowledge will be
     found reasonable and there will be no liability for contributory
     infringement for allowing the continued distribution of works on
     its system." Slip Op. at 17.

If a fact-finder agrees that there is no liability in such a situation, many
system operators will live much happier lives as a result.... [End citation]

Published in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, December 13, 1995, at page 6. https://1drv.ms/t/s!AvW0eEdkOQQMgoQuXUIm1JTXzdig_A Tomklem (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC) "Judge Whyte correctly concluded that Internet service providers and BBS providers can't be directly liable where there is no volitional act," said Carla Oakley, a partner at San Francisco's Morrison and Foerster who represents Dennis Erlich. "It's a very important and key decision...." https://1drv.ms/t/s!AvW0eEdkOQQMgellswVXOlN_uElZyw Tomklem (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cloughjordan Community Farm

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

Non-notable non-profit organisation. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORGDEPTH or related criteria. It is a community organisation which (according to its CRO returns for 2018) has 2 employees. In terms of coverage, the archived Farmers Journal piece in the article seems to be the only coverage in that outlet for which the subject is the primary topic. (There are others in which the subject is mentioned, but where the primary topic is another subject/event.) Elsewhere, for example in the Irish Times as the main newspaper of record in Ireland, I can find nothing at all for the literal string/subject's name. A broader search, for coverage in which the subject may be mentioned, returns just that: a handful of pieces in which the subject is mentioned in passing. This is just a largely ROTM community organisation/farm. There is no reason to consider it any more notable than any other community organisation. Or farm. Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable farm. Spleodrach (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOLE. Geschichte (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrylo Kryvoborodenko

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

Non-notable soccer player who has only played in regional and amateur leagues. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. John B123 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFOOTY and GNG per nominator JW 1961 Talk — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - does fail GNG but does pass NFOOTBALL as the third tier of Ukrainian football is listed at WP:FPL and he has played 11 games this season at that level as per this and this Spiderone 22:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NFOOTY after FC Chernihiv was promoted to the fully-professional Ukrainian Second League in 2020. Several appearances already this season. User:John B123, User:Joseywales1961, and User:GiantSnowman should revisit their claims that NFOOTY hasn't been met. Nfitz (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFOOTBALL #2. gidonb (talk) 02:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 24 years and has an ongoing career see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes NFOOTY and ongoing career.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per second division appearance meeting NFOOTY, which I noted in my denied PROD (which was not mentioned in the AFD nomination). matt91486 (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2012: Supernova

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

I see blog-like reviews and streaming sites, but not enough evidence of notability; all I found was this review. The only source is a review with no actual review. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides the Horror News Net review, there is also one at Blu-ray.com [[14]]. Both sites are RS.Donaldd23 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - some coverage can be found that can satisfy keeping it, although sounds like a pretty bad movie. Kolma8 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Trashy Asylum movie, but the coverage is okay. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:57, 29 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fivemile Landing, Arizona

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

More irresposible negligent falsehoods. What part of this landing on the lake is a "populated place"? No evidence of notability Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Looking at the topos, the name moves around, starting at a single building and then moving south to settle on a trailer park which is also no longer there. There's no evidence for a settlement, merely a vague location on the river bank. Mangoe (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is a named location on Lake Havasu with boat slips, former trailer park/campground. There are plenty of newspaper articles about this place (not as a populated place or settlement), so worthy of a redirect to Havasu National Wildlife Refuge where it is located. See [15] and [16] for typical coverage. It needs to be mentioned at that article, but there is nothing to merge from the existing article except maybe the coords. MB 05:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Lake Havasu itself would be a better target, but as neither article goes into any much detail about the facilities on the lake I'm not really seeing this, especially not for a boat ramp. Mangoe (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This place is 20 miles north of the lake. The refuge is the whole area north of Lake Havasu up to Needles. I went ahead and added a small paragraph in Havasu National Wildlife Refuge as a redirect target. MB 22:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We had another article on this place - an unreferenced stub. I went ahead and redirected that to Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. MB 22:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:57, 29 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tharathip Sukdarunpat

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

Just winning some beauty contest is not enough to show notability. The sourcing here is not enough to pass GNG, and a search for more sources turned up nothing reliable John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having had a quick look at the Thai sources, starting with the Thai version of this article, this looks like a typical WP:BLP1E; famous for only one event Spiderone 21:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:57, 29 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Mahesh Kumar

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

The page creator changed the content of my PROD which I'm assuming means that they are contesting it. The initial PROD was Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:NFILMMAKER; has only directed one film and has only one source that explores him in depth. Nothing better found in a WP:BEFORE search. and I stand by this. Spiderone 20:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:56, 29 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Cunningham (painter)

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

Article was first created by user WANAWALT, who may be William Anawalt. WANAWALT was also the creator of the Wikipedia page for Sasha Anawalt, Mr. Anawalt's wife and Mr. Cunninghmam's daughter. This may be an attempt to artificially raise the profile and internet presence of Mr. Cunningham and is likely in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Beyond that, the article lacks sufficient citation for most of its material. The first paragraph of Mr. Cunningham's biography includes three citations to additional text, but it is unclear if those texts mention him at all. There are no citations for his career page or the recognition and awards page, and there is only one for his publications. The citation for his contributions to founding the New York School of Art is a single mention in a brief letter written by Barney Hodes to New York Magazine in 1996. Still, Mr. Cunningham has his own Wikipedia page and Mr. Hodes does not, raising the question again of whether Mr. Cunningham's page was created organically and if he meets the notability requirements to merit his own page.

Due to the lack of citation and creation by a user who is related to Mr. Cunningham, the background behind this article's creation raises significant doubt over the notability of Mr. Cunningham. If Mr. Cunningham is notable, there should be no issue further fleshing out this article with proper, legitimate citations. If not, the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O811RT1 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is very curious that this AfD was the nominator's third edit to the encyclopedia, and that they have only made nine total edits. They also do not have a User page ~~nor a Talk page~~. Netherzone (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article and those found (or perhaps "not found") in a search tend confirm what the nomination says: his importance is puffed by the article. Possibly (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few things for the nominator:

"The first paragraph of Mr. Cunningham's biography includes three citations to additional text, but it is unclear if those texts mention him at all." You can't seriously think we'll discount sources because you haven't looked for them. Dude, no. That's not how it works here.

"There are no citations for his career page or the recognition and awards page, and there is only one for his publications." We have something called "tags" for this sort of situation. Simple Googling can provide at least some of the sources.

"The citation for his contributions to founding the New York School of Art is a single mention in a brief letter written by Barney Hodes to New York Magazine in 1996." I wonder if I can find more?

"Still, Mr. Cunningham has his own Wikipedia page and Mr. Hodes does not..." No. There is an article on Cunningham. He does not have a page.

"...Raising the question again of whether Mr. Cunningham's page was created organically and if he meets the notability requirements to merit his own page." No, no, no. Writing a letter to New York Magazine doesn't put Hodes ahead. Even if it did, it isn't a race. The most "worthy" or "notable" does not get an article first.

Some people care about whether article creation is "organic". Others, like me, care less about this and more about whether the subject is encyclopedic. Some of us are suspicious of people who join Wikipedia to get articles deleted and we sure notice when such people don't have the patience to learn how things work. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm holding off on !voting on this for now until more research can be done. So far I've found one museum collection here, ~~and an odd, but long-ish article on him in Wall Street International Magazine here.~~ Whether or not he co-founded the New York Academy of Art is disputed, according to the WP article on the school. I am leaning towards delete unless another museum collection or more press is found. Netherzone (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for holding off on voting. I love when people do that. :) I have been able to verify several things, including his involvement in the founding of the schools, in contemporary sources. Maybe the New York Academy of Art has forgotten him. Thanks for sharing WSJ; I was able to incorporate a little of that. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other artists named Francis Cunningham, so I'm trying to be cognizant of who is who before coming to any conclusions. Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Netherzone, Wall Street International Magazine is a vanity press. Did you notice they don't offer paid subscriptions and have no ads? Vexations (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vexations, thank you for letting me know, I admire your rigor and research skills. I had no idea it was a vanity publication. I'll strike my comment regarding it as a possible reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG and maybe subject-specific guidelines as an artist too. I am finding a number of feature articles on him in newspapers.com. Haven't checked NewspaperArchive or Proquest yet. Will do so as I have time and add sources to the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Won notable awards, plus coverage found. Not sure if being in a college museum counts towards notability since University of Richmond has 4,350 students at a time so its like a small town. Does the museum have a lot of visitors? Berkshire Museum seems like a significant art museum, so having some of his work there adds to his notability. Dream Focus 03:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 15:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC) DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:HEY article improvements by DiamondRemley39. ~~Delete~~ ~~Neutral~~ - I looked deeply into this entry since academic painting is not an interest of mine, and I wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt. Here's my thoughts: The press is local, not major national or international art publications like Artforum, Art in America, that publish art criticism within a historical framework. Some are listings which don’t count towards notability. The one closest to an in-depth piece is from a vanity press (Wall St. Intern’l) therefore does not count. The NY Sun citation is a three sentence mention. A number of the citations don’t mention him at all, but rather mention artists who are name-dropped in the article. Several citations are primary sources from his affiliations like the NY Academy of Art, Art Students League, these don’t count. The Berkshire Museum collection is unverifiable per a collections search or digital archive search. Re: Richmond Museum, it’s a small university museum that did not purchase his work, it was donated by someone. Unlikely that a curatorial process was involved. His publications don’t seem to be reviewed. The “Works”, most of which are unverifiable seem to be illustrations in technical publications, or things he wrote himself. Regarding the Awards, Bogliosco is a residency fellowship. The one that would count is the Tiffany Foundation, unable to verify from citation which seems to be about his teaching in relation to the Art Student’s League. I’m not sure about the other awards as it seems they may have some sort of “membership” criteria, other editors may know more about this. So to my mind, it seems his notability is hung on that one Tiffany grant - the sum total of everything does not a notable artist make, therefore does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. (Sorry this is so long!) Netherzone (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote to neutral. I agree with a few other editors in this discussion that the nomination itself is questionable and there seems to be a subtext to consider. The nominator has made very few or no edits outside of this nom and nominating his daughter's article for deletion (it passed GNG); seems that they might be here solely to take down these two articles for some personal reason rather than build an encyclopedia. There have been no other edits they have made since the nominations. That just does not sit right with me, and I think the nom is flawed. Netherzone (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to do a bit of research to see if I can confirm the Tiffany Foundation grant. Their official website only goes back to 1979 and I'm not finding coverage of the grants in newspapers of the time (which makes sense, as those might read like press releases). DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39: I'd be very dubious about using grants to determine notability, as there are many different types, and many are given to facilitate projects rather than as a recognition of notability. Also, in this case his 1973 grant predates the $20,000 Tiffany grant that is well-known today. I found this about the Tiffany foundation: "At various points it also purchased work from up-and-coming artists for donation to museum collections, ran an apprenticeship program, and made direct, individual grants. By 1980, these various activities coalesced into the program for which the Tiffany Foundation is recognized for today: the biennial awarding of substantial grant money to thirty different artists". Possibly (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm holding off on posting a vote as I'm frankly of two minds about this one. The initial article had major issues for objectivity (based on possible family connections by the article creator with the subject), however, content-wise I think this is getting closer to meeting the notability standard, but not quite there yet. Jmbranum (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a few features in local papers but that isn't enough, there has to be at least some regional or wider source coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of local interest only. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he evidently passes WP:GNG based on the number of pre-internet news articles, as well as the awards and, I would say, being an academician of the National Academy of Design. Possibly addition sources have been added since the nomination was made (or if they were already there, the nomination would be very mean). For someone who is still alive but was active decades ago, the article appears to be well sourced (the 1980 Berkshire Eagle article gives a good biography of him). Sionk (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good note on National Academy of Design. I was unfamiliar with it before this article; it looks prestigious/exclusive. Regarding the "very mean" comment-- as you probably saw above--this nomination was drafted by someone who joined Wikipedia to and has made no edits outside of trying to get this article and the article on Sasha Anawalt deleted--someone who may have a problem with either subject or a family member. How telling that we have tags for COI in article writing, but not in the motivation of deletion nominators. If this person succeeds, it'll be despite the subject meeting WP:GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weakish) Much of career pre-internet, but seems sufficiently notable. Noting potential issues with nom too. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The membership of the National Academy of Design, which is a form of peer recognition for excellence means that the subject meets criterion 1 of WP:ARTIST. Vexations (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RYZ

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

PROD declined on the grounds that "Company is notable because of the importance of crowdsourcing business models." However I cannot find any evidence or additional sourcing to back that up. Note: For those who might also check, I got a security error for their website so advocate not clicking it. StarM 21:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. StarM 21:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any substantial independent coverage of this company. All I find are Nike shoes with the same name. SFB 00:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete running into the same problem as SFB above. ~EdGl talk 21:51, 29 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holestepper

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

Non-notable film, despite the extensive list of awards, all listed awards are very minor in scope, many coming from monthly award mills, and the film is only listed in these, not covered per se, this does not meet guidelines descried at WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:55, 29 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. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ylenia Carrisi

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

Missing person. Possibly dead. Is this really notable? She has famous ancestors, but notability is not inherited. Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if this is kept, then, in my opinion, it should be moved to something like Disappearance of Ylenia Carrisi since her disappearance seems to be the claim to notability Spiderone 19:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support moving article to "Disappearance of Ylenia Carrisi"; she isn't notable, the disappearance would be. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of people disappear. That in itself doesnt make them notable. Rathfelder (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EFounders

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability does not appear to have changed from the first time it was deleted. No indication of multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing this company in significant detail. Instead coverage is from places like TechCrunch discussing the companies in which it has made an investment. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to find English sources meeting GNG - Wired UK seems to be the closest. As for French sources, Forbes France is the only decent possibility of the supplied sources. The Wired piece is not exactly the kind of substantial coverage NCORP prefers eh. Forbes France, well, I'm not sure if we treat their entrepreneurs section as the equivalent of Forbes profiles? Leaning delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found a few more that were missed. Handful of sources meeting GNG including Les Echos (two), Le Soir, Wired UK, Forbes France (written by Forbes author), Tech.eu, and a lot of significant coverage between the various TechCrunch and Maddyness articles. It’s a startup studio, so it makes sense that coverage would include companies in which it has made an investment. Nostalgic57 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the sources added since my nomination, tech.eu is a republished press release, I agree the first Le Soir is, from what I can see before a paywall, a good source, The Les Echos coverage could be because of translate but doesn't, from my reading, appear to meet the standard necessary for NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Forbes, Wired magazine, and others are covering them, then they are clearly notable. Plus they raised a massive amount of money. Dream Focus 23:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sweet Valley High#Characters. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Wakefield

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

No information on reception and page mostly contains in-universe information that do not have much sourcing. Sources provided are mostly links to Amazon. lullabying (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (negotiable) - Nomination fails to give a reason for deletion. Per WP:NEXIST, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:ATD, "The article is poorly written", "The article is poorly sourced", or "The article is too much plot" are not reasons for deletion. In fact, these points are even listed in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Dark knight 2149 02:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: This article fails WP:GNG and the page is just WP:FAN. All the in-universe information doesn't seem appropriate, especially without reliable sources from third-party literature critics, and Wikipedia is not a fan site (there is Wikia for this). lullabying (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, any thoughts for a "redirect" as a wikireader lookup? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no "notable" information anywhere in the article. No development, reception, or reviews. It's WP:PLOTONLY with a few references (mostly from Amazon.com), and at the moment, it's clearly WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reception section or like, no sources found that suggest it might be possible to write one. Fails GNG/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sweet Valley High as an alternative to deletion. If she is the central character to a franchise, she's a plausible search term. She is already mentioned in the character list of the franchise page, making it a suitable target per WP:ATD-R. -2pou (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sweet Valley High per 2pou's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per 2Pou. Abhi88iisc (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Main character in a highly notable work. pburka (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - Topic lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer: Because the nominator doesn't give a policy-based reason for deletion (only citing arguments about quality of the article that fail WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN), any "Per nom" votes above should be dismissed per WP:NOTAVOTE. Dark knight 2149 18:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statements such as this are both unnecessary and annoying. It is a clear assumption of bad faith on the part of the AfD participants and stupidity on the part of admins that they would be unable to tell a bad faith vote from a good one. "Per nom" vote is not automatic grounds to ignore it if the nom has laid out a convincing argument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sweet Valley High#Characters, seems to be a valid redirect target, but zero real world notability for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Sweet Valley High#Characters per others, no independent notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Sweet Valley High#Characters. After the three lede sentences, the article is a complete fail against WP:WAF; it is all in-universe summary. With no real world comment to make about the character, there is no basis for a standalone article. The content is possibly suited to https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108949/characters/nm0199590?ref_=tt_cl_t1, but is not for Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as is the emerging consensus. No real world content from independent sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the nomination is in good faith, I do not see where NPOL makes a distinction between elected and appointed officials, and therefore the argument that this individual meets NPOL has not been refuted. We can only apply the policy as written, and in this case, written policy is clear. If we want NPOL to distinguish between appointed and elected officials, I would encourage the formulation of an RfC. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mariya Mahmoud Bunkure

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability exist,per WP:NEXIST, also there are several articles for commissioners at state level for USA, of whom the articles possessed only two to three references and they are left without deletion, , it only provide two to four references, see this [17] and this [18] also here are several articles for commissioners at state level [19].- An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 15:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe the difference is between elected and appointed. NPOL, if you read the entire context, deals with elected officials. Historically, appointed officials don't automatically qualify for NPOL, and should meet GNG. I can't find any similar articles on US officials at this level who are appointed, rather than elected. And if NPOL doesn't exist, there does not appear to be enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If your appointment constitutes being a cabinet member at a level such as a state of India, Nigeria or the United States of America, or Mexico or Brazil, than you are in fact default notable by virtue of that appointment. That is why we have an article on Keith N. Hamilton. Even if I only actually learned about him because of his activities as a writer. Even back in 2011 when I created the article on Hamilton I was unconvinced he was a notable writer, in the ensuing years I have come to see we have a higher threshold for writer notability than I did then, plus in 2011 it was possible to think his publication of his book would lead to broader notice. As best I can tell it has not, it was a flash in the pan moment. Still his role as a member of the state cabinet was high enough to pass NPOL.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the US, if you are in a state level cabinet position you will be considered notable. We have for example an article on A. C. Nelson who was comissioner of education for Utah from 1904 until his death. I believe this was an appointed position. The article relies heavily on the biogrpahy of his grandson, which starts off with indepth coverage of ancestry. It also relies on a 1904 New York Times article, incidental to Nelson testifying before a very famous US senate inquiry. What exact positions at a state level are notable has never been fully determined, but I can see education comissioners, whether elected or appointed being considered such. In Parliamentary systems like Canada, all the provincial level ministers will be notable because they will all be elected. So in some cases saying appointment does not make one notable will make less people notable under non-parliamentary systems. On the other hand, I would hold that most members of state wide elected boards are not notable. Here in Michigan I have held that being on the state board of education does not make one notable, nor on one of the three state wide elected university boards (which I think each have their own title for members). I would think the one head of education however they get into that position is more notable than a person who is part of a 6 member board, even if the head is appointed and the board elected. Sort of like how James Craig as Detroit police chief is notable, and holds that position by appointment by the mayor (OK, he was actually appointed by the emergency manager during the bankruptcy, but at any point after Jan. 1, 2015 Duggan could have removed him, but has not), while the six elected members of the board of police comissioners are not notable. Similarly I can see cases where a city manager might be notable but the elected figure head mayor would not be. Also I suspect more school superintendents are notable than school board members, although the former are almost always appointed and the later almost always elected. To be clear in the last case of the 10,000 or so public schools superintendants in the US at present, if 7 of them are actually notable I would be shocked.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, hi, and thanks for your input. I wish I could find AfD's which dealt with this. In doing research on this, I first checked out the members of the state cabinet here in AZ. Only one of them who was not elected had an article (Ted Vogt), and they met NPOL because prior to serving in the cabinet, they served in the state legislature. Then I thought to myself, there aren't that many folks active in the Arizona project, so I picked a more active state, NY. The same thing applied, not a single appointed official had an article. Regarding A.C. Nelson, all members of the Utah school board, including the commissioner are elected. If you look on Google Books for Report of the Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Utah, and then search for Nelson, on page 64 it states that he was elected in November 1900 (the WP article is wrong, since he didn't take office until 1901). WP:POLOUTCOMES states, "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level..." (emphasis mine). When the term "usually" is used, that usually means (see what I did there? ) that GNG should be met. The "Elected and appointed verbiage was added by an editor, without discussion on the talk page on March 12, 2011, and has remained unchallenged since then. WP:NPOL does not categorically state whether or not to include appointed officials, only stating that they "held" the office, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." However, the following sentence does indicate that this applies to elected officials, "This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them", since it doesn't state people who have been elected or appointed but not...I think, however, that this is a discussion to be had over at the notability page. Do you mind if I cut and paste your comments there? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually" is a perfectly normal English word, which means "usually", not "usually not", just the same as "presume" does not mean "presume the opposite". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by Onel5969. JPL does raise a good point but honestly if we are to follow what was outlined in WP:NPOL, then this article's subject doesn’t satisfy NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the arguments above. Kolma8 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes WP:NPOL, which makes no distinction between elected legislators and appointed government ministers, as a senior member of a state government. Quite why anyone should say this is a deletion candidate is totally beyond me. I'm trying very hard, but find it difficult to put it down to anything other than a bias against African politicians, as the equivalent from Europe or North America would come nowhere near even being considered for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Cabinet minister in a State Government she's very, very clearly notable underWP:NPOL. If this were a European politician of a similar standing this matter wouldn't be up for question at all. --Vitalis196 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas List (film)

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

Non-notable television film, did not receive significant coverage by independent sources (WP:GNG) BOVINEBOY2008 12:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and the awards listed are not enough to make up for that, in my view Spiderone 11:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find many sources to establish notability. Film seems to just plainly fail GNG and should be deleted. Andrew nyrtalkcontribs 00:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas to Remember (2016 film)

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage by independent sources (reviews are from SPS with no editorial oversight, not notable) BOVINEBOY2008 12:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There's no actual information, just plot, and it fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chompy Ace 00:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge into A Christmas to Remember (1978 film)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Epiphyllumlover: can I ask why merge? The article says it is not a remake of the '78 film. I don't think they have any connection other than the title. BOVINEBOY2008 17:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you delete it, people looking for info about the recent film will Wikipedia searchers will mistakenly think it is a remake. So merging is a way to disambiguate; you make a section about the new movie explaining it isn't a remake and redirect to it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Hallmark Christmas movie, literally one of hundreds with similar plots. This one doesn't stand out. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 29 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poothali

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

Someone created the repository of ENTIRE Malayalam-language or Malayalam films (List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1960s, List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1970s, and so on) violating Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The vast majority of the films not meeting the WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and essentially copy-n-pastes from the Malayalam movie databases, such as [[20]].

Now, specifically to this film.

The general WP:NFILM notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific WP:NFILM:

The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.

The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.

The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.

The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: All three references are the database entries.

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:45, 29 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sthreehridayam

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

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

Someone created the repository of ENTIRE Malayalam-language or Malayalam films (List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1960s, List_of_Malayalam_films_of_the_1970s, and so on) violating Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The vast majority of the films not meeting the WP:NFILM and WP:GNG and essentially copy-n-pastes from the Malayalam movie databases, such as [[21]].