Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 01 December 03 >

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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 ( talk) 02:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Sizzle Beach, U.S.A.

Sizzle Beach, U.S.A. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 23:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The Perennial sources list says "Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines." — Toughpigs ( talk) 01:47, 4 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) 01:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Katia Zygouli

Katia Zygouli (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP without real references Rathfelder ( talk) 23:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Equalizer 2000

Equalizer 2000 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 23:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

This Rebel Breed

This Rebel Breed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite having an article about it in The A.V. Club, it has no other significant coverage. Does not meet WP:NFILM. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 22:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:03, 2 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The Comeback Trail

The Comeback Trail (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite having a review from The New York Times, it has no other significant coverage. Needs two or more reviews to pass WP:NFO. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 22:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:50, 2 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 ( talk) 13:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The Black Godfather

The Black Godfather (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite having a review from The New York Times, it has no other significant coverage. Needs two or more reviews to pass WP:NFO. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 22:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:36, 2 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. Withdrawn by OP. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 05:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Project Kill

Project Kill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are 6 listed citations available here [ [6]], did any of them get looked at for possible notability support? Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, looking through what's available online makes me believe that there must be 1970s newspaper sources (at least from Kentucky) to verify the contents against RS. Indeed the film may be a bit obscure but as there are no good redirect targets, I would favour a standalone article. I don't see how we could not cover a major film that had Leslie Nielsen and Nancy Kwan in it. — Kusma ( t· c) 18:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If an administrator is willing to vote Keep for this, then I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 23:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Hitcher vs. Candyman, that I am an admin does not make my opinion more important here, so please don't read too much into that. I totally agree that the article needs better sources (and I think a couple of days in a good library would provide those), but I don't think deleting this article helps. — Kusma ( t· c) 10:49, 6 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 ( talk) 17:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Find the Lady (1976 film)

Find the Lady (1976 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 22:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:31, 2 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 ( talk) 17:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time

It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 22:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The spinoff film Find the Lady has reviews. Sequels/spinoffs don't usually happen unless the original film was notable enough. Finding reviews online today for a limited release Canadian film released in 1975 is difficult, but the fact it had a spinoff film. Seems a shame that a John Candy film is being questioned. (I know notability is not inherited, but it's John Freaking Candy.) Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The only actual problem here is that this article was created in 2006, a time when we did not have the same rules about citing sources directly in the article that we do today — at the time, as long as it was verifiable that the topic wasn't an outright hoax, you were allowed to start an article with no footnotes in it and it was simply presumed that footnotes would eventually get added. Yes, that was incredibly stupid of us, and left us cleaning up a lot of garbage, which is precisely why the rules have been tightened up in the intervening 15 years — but that also means you can't just delete a 15 year old article for lacking sources, without first checking whether sources are available to salvage it with or not. Which they are here: I've already added three solid sources to start from a Gerald Pratley book and a ProQuest search, and there are 46 more hits to sort through in a newspapers.com search (which I'll need some help retrieving, as search is free on there but retrieval isn't, so adding some or all of them will take a bit more time.) That's plenty enough for a WP:GNG pass: notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not necessarily the current state of the article. Bearcat ( talk) 14:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Sounds convincing enough Bearcat. I withdraw this nomination. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 16:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Going with keep here. Feel free to discuss mergers, if any, on the appropriate talk page. Thanks everyone! Missvain ( talk) 01:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Charlie (Street Fighter)

Charlie (Street Fighter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the previous noms, reception is lackluster and consists entirely of listicles in what little is there. Fails WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 12:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. The reception section is pretty much just a paragraph version of 'he was n-th on list y, and m-th on list z', which a recent RSN discussion are not reliable and not sufficient for establishing notability. That said, it may be best to merge the reception section to the list of Street Fighter characters, it has some value, unlike the unreferenced plot-summary fancruft. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve, or in the alternative if the consensus is that the subject does not meet GNG, merge. I believe this character has received some coverage which have not been used in the article, but he is probably a borderline case. Also, a tentative agreement between a handful of editors on a viewpoint is not a precedent-establishing consensus, and not all of the listicles cited actually provide passing mentions only. Anyway, a few unused sources for everyone's consideration:

Haleth ( talk) 08:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The Den of Geek one is not bad, but the others are trivial. If there were several like the Den of Geek one I would withdraw my nomination but it still doesn't appear to be independently notable just based on that (and that ref can easily be incorporated into the overall character list). ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 02:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
A few more that I've found. Haleth ( talk) 02:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Hmmm, not bad. Most of those are borderline/unreliable, but denofgeek, plus [9] (although it is half- WP:INTERVIEW), are good. This is also interesting, but seems more like a blog? Still, this is getting salvageable. Can we find anything more reliable? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Websites like Kotaku (and its sister sites), Polygon and Destructoid are all essentially in blog format. Even longtime media outlets like IGN publishes posts that comes across like blogged content at times. The relevant consensus is not so much whether it is a blog and if so perceived as lower quality, but rather whether the blog site has any kind of editorial oversight, besides putting out quality content. Haven't seen anything about this weplay.tv site which leaves me concerned me about lack of editorial oversight or professionalism. One thing about the character though, he has a long history of being referred to as just Nash in Japan and other territories (which is how I found even more sources), besides his first name Charlie in the West. Whether he gets an entry in the list or the standalone article stays, it should be his full name.
A few more for your consideration as well. Haleth ( talk) 23:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
        • CBM (another interview)
        • Destructoid (Official statue merchandise for Nash and Guile)
        • Technobuffalo (critique of his appearance)
        • Prima Games (half of it is game guide, but first 2 paragraphs nicely summarizes his visual and gameplay redesign)
        • Detik (in Indonesian, another critique of his appearance and moves upon the reveal)
        • Redbull (about notable pro player who sticks with the character and provides insight into the character's metagame as of 2017)
        • 4Gamer (Interview with the developers in Japanese, some developmental info)
  • Redirect - Topic does not establish notability, but it seems something can maybe be salvaged for the character list. TTN ( talk) 21:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I have listed an extensive amount of sources which build towards demonstrating the character's notability, but you have not commented on why the sources are unsuitable or do not provide significant coverage. To closing admin, given that the nominator and another editor have indicated that they are open to considering these sources, may I suggest that this discussion be relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Haleth ( talk) 06:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 November 16 after a contested "merge" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - The sources listed here could prove useful in improving this character's article... Roberth Martinez ( talk) 04:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Merge. There is not enough coverage in the above sources to do justice to the topic without delving into primary sources and original research. Expand summary style within the parent article. This should be the default for these characters—their coverage is very often among all other series characters, not profiles into out-of-universe impact of Charlie Nash. Don't think this needed to go to deletion review and don't think this needed to be relisted. (not watching, please {{ ping}}) czar 06:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Den of Geek looks very good. Polygon is reliable, though not much depth. primagames.com has 2 paragraphs of coverage of the character as a concept and quite a bit more as a playable character. Not sure is considered reliable, but I can't see why it wouldn't be reliable in this context. The Weplay one I'm unclear on (feels like a blog post, but might not be). So one good source (in-depth, reliable, independent), one reliable source with only a couple of paragraphs, and one good one I think is reliable plus a ton of other stuff. Hobit ( talk) 03:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    If Den of Geek is the best we have, it shows that the character is only noteworthy in-universe. I think it's a stretch to call that Polygon release an article. I haven't seen coverage that describes his importance outside the general list/cast of series characters. czar 20:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:59, 2 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 List of lakes of Alaska. Missvain ( talk) 21:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Dull Ax Lake

Dull Ax Lake (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are nearly 3,200 named lakes in Alaska, about 0.1% of all lakes statewide. So, lots and lots of lakes that aren't really notable, and I don't see anything about this one that makes it notable. The article basically says "it exists, some guy named it, it's near this other stuff with no article." Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Slight issue with that idea: If you look at the talk page of that list, you will see a discussion of weather that list should include lakes with no article at all, as, again, there are over 3,000 named lakes out of the 3,000,000 total lakes in Alaska. If we list all the named lakes that list would get quite ridiculous, yet that is what one user is attempting, a 3000-item list. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, but further down that same page WP:CSC states "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list" so it's not as cut-and-dried as all that. I've just opened an RFC over there to discuss this matter further. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close as wrong venue, as page is a redirect which would ordinarily be covered at WP:RFD. Further, said redirect was never tagged to indicate that this dicussion was even taking place. I will boldly change the redirect to point to the nominator's article Thomas and Friends Blue Mountain Mystery--this can easily be changed back to its original target if that article is draftified or deleted. ( non-admin closure) -- Finngall talk 00:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Thomas & Friends: Blue Mountain Mystery

Thomas & Friends: Blue Mountain Mystery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason RanDom 404 ( talk) 20:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this but this redirect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Thomas_%26_Friends:_Blue_Mountain_Mystery&redirect=no) is messing up a page I just created. Since it currently redirects to Thomas & Friends (franchise), it's messing up the article from being seen. Please delete the redirect page I requested. reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:27, 2 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. Feel free to discuss renaming the article on the talk page. I think that's a good idea. Missvain ( talk) 01:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Bands and musicians from Yorkshire and North East England

Bands and musicians from Yorkshire and North East England (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This will no doubt be a controversial nomination. Fails WP:LISTN and does not meet any purpose of a list under WP:LISTPURP. Also goes against key principles of WP:IINFO ( WP:RAWDATA). Also, inclusion criteria are unclear. Ed Sheeran might well be born in Halifax but I doubt anyone would consider him to be from Yorkshire given that he grew up in the south.

  • WP:LISTN - there is a lack of evidence to suggest that this topic is discussed at length in reliable sources; I'm not seeing any particular reason why bands, musicians and festivals from this particular region should be given a special level of significance
  • WP:LISTPURP - this list does not contain any valuable information, it does not aid in navigation and it serves no developmental purpose
  • WP:IINFO - merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Spiderone 20:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
If it's kept wouldn't it be better to rename the article Music in Yorkshire or something similar? The article also lists venues, festivals and albums associated with the county. Spiderone 10:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I think that's really an overlapping but separate thing. "Fooers from place X" in lists and categories never is almost never limited to those that Foo'd in that place, it's really more about subdividing by occupation the grouping of everyone notable from that place. postdlf ( talk) 15:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This appears to be exactly what I would look for in a list. Great wikilinking to other articles I may be interested in, and as a list, I would expect to find the supporting sources in maybe just some select places - which is the case here. Notability certainly isn't a factor for me on a list of this nature and size.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 21:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per discussion, although a re-naming is not out of order. Bearian ( talk) 22:40, 8 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. The football fans here know their stuff. Going with delete. Missvain ( talk) 01:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hassan Mawla

Hassan Mawla (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner ( talk) 19:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Missvain ( talk) 21:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

James Johnson (sports administrator)

James Johnson (sports administrator) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football executive who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Majority of media mentions of him are trivial or passing at best. The article is basically a resume. BlameRuiner ( talk) 18:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:34, 2 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. Going with delete for now. Can always be re-established if the sources magically appear! Missvain ( talk) 01:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Basim Jamal Mahmoud Al-Salihi

Basim Jamal Mahmoud Al-Salihi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer and military person who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner ( talk) 18:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:39, 2 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) 01:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Darius G. Pridgen

Darius G. Pridgen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city council is not a level of office that confers an automatic notability freebie just because the person exists -- to get a Wikipedia article for serving at this level of office, a person must either (a) serve on the city council of an externally recognized global city on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto or London, or (b) be referenceable to a depth and range and volume of media coverage that marks them out as a special case of much more nationalized significance than most other city councillors. (And no, being president of the council still isn't a notability freebie; even with that title, he still has to pass the same global city and/or nationalized sourceability tests as any other city councillor.) Neither of those conditions are demonstrated here, however: the city does not have global city status, and the article cites just three footnotes of which one is a Q&A interview in a local interest magazine in which he's talking about himself in the first person (thus fine for verification of facts but not a builder of notability), one is his "staff" profile on the city council's self-published website about itself (a primary source that is not a builder of notability), and one is just a piece of routine local news reportage about his battle with Miss Corona. So there's only one source here that's reliable or GNG-worthy, and that's not enough. Bearcat ( talk) 18:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 18:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete lacks the depth of coverage in WP:RS needed to meet WP:BIO Valenciano ( talk) 23:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete being on a city council is not a default sign of notability and we do not have sufficient sourcing to show notability. I have come to realize even in denominations where bishops supervise large numbers of congregations default notablity is not there for bishops. In this case, Pridgen looks to be a Pentecostal bishop, and in Pentecostalism it is unclear what makes someone a bishop. Many Pentecostal bishops are over one congregation, and while they are often big congregations, not every head of a congrgregation of 5000 is notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The city council president in New York's 62 cities has a bully pulpit and some procedural powers, but no substantive powers beyond that of any other alderman or member of a city council. Absent significant coverage, this person is not notable. Bearian ( talk) 22:54, 8 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 withdrawn, migrated to MfD. XOR'easter ( talk) 23:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

Draft:David Hecht

Draft:David Hecht (  | [[Talk:Draft:David Hecht|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason

While the article is in draft format, it neither includes anything of significance and doesn't meet notability. The BoardgameGeek link as a a reference doesn't even include any content. I further googled to look for sources and found nothing meaningful. The games with which he created are mentioned under a subset of a wider category 18XX and are neither common from distribution or in terms of game design. Gort2020 ( talk) 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Apparently, because it is still in draft space I can't add the tag to the article perhaps only option was CSD:A7 not sure how to reconcile this... Gort2020 ( talk) 17:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, I have moved it to MFD following on from when I did a preview edit but not sure how to close this page. Gort2020 ( talk) 18:39, 2 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) 01:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Fernando Martins Ferreira

Fernando Martins Ferreira (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite my efforts to find their work in notable collections, studies of their work, or significant press coverage, this artist appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Missvain ( talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:13, 2 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) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Aqeel Hato

Aqeel Hato (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football player and coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner ( talk) 18:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He has not played for or managed a senior national team or in fully professional league, meaning the articles fails WP:NFOOTBALL. There's no indication of sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 00:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - currently does not meet GNG or NFOOTBALL Spiderone 15:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Same comment as for Hassan Mawla. We have some large-scale work on the Iraqi sports club Al-Mina'a SC on our encyclopedia. As part of painting the larger picture around that club and its sports, there are numerous articles on current and former managers of the football side. This is one of those articles, and I am a big proponent of seeing certain articles as a small piece of a larger whole, which applies here. Deleting this article would destroy a small puzzle piece, but would leave a recognizable hole.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

James Dougherty (police officer)

AfDs for this article:
James Dougherty (police officer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly to Mona Rae Miracle, also at AfD, the only remote claim to notability other than WP:NOTINHERITED is that he had some part to play in the development of SWAT tactics: the sources for this are passing mentions in two obituaries and not particularly conclusive, one describing him as "training" the first SWAT team and the other that he "invented the SWAT team" without giving any real detail. It could be that he is notable for this reason but the article as it stands does not bear that out. The article was previously deleted via AfD in 2015. ninety: one 17:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 21:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Kristina Vramencalieva

Kristina Vramencalieva (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing much found doing BEFORE and the available references fail WP:SIGCOV. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 14:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 14:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 14:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's no consensus so far. Perhaps this relist would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Editors have expressed this meets GNG. (non-admin closure) SK2242 ( talk) 18:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Monty Meth

Monty Meth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG after searching for sources. SK2242 ( talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SK2242 ( talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 ( talk) 02:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Local news good for GNG? Some of the sources listed aren’t very significant coverage. SK2242 ( talk) 17:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious keep. I'm baffled by this AfD—anyone even considering this as potentially non-notable surely would have pulled up at "Industrial editor for the Daily Mail". ‑  Iridescent 12:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 16:51, 2 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) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Tele Cine Awards

Tele Cine Awards (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth coverage of this subject or "Tele Cine Society" found on Google News or Google Books. Entity claims to have started in 2000, but they only had a website from 2013 to 2015 (See Wayback Machine at https://web.archive.org/web/20130817000608/http://telecine.co.in/) and the only content found in the article are slivers from 2011 to 2013. Their Twitter account @TeleCineAward appears to be defunct.

Further, the article creator made a few edits in this subject area to various articles the year before they created the article. [10] [11] [12] That kind of suggests to me a COI, which is enhanced by the spate of edits in 2015 from Vivaan Viswanath, who was a sock of Vamsiraj, someone who was likely involved in a paid editing ring. So very little about this article or entity strikes me as legit. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:34, 2 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) 01:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Treves, California

Treves, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topos suggests Treves was simply a railroad station (isolated point on the tracks with basically no development), as does this. Might bundle a few more railroad features in the area into this nomination. Hog Farm Bacon 16:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 16:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Ilmon, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was a siding, see this.

Walong, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The siding at the Tehachapi Loop, see this.

Marcel, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A station, see this.

While I normally don't like bundled nominations, given that a single user created hundreds and possibly well over a thousand similarly problematic geography stubs just in the state of California, for efficiency's sake, this is needed. These all fail WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm Bacon 16:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Words fail me. What's even more shocking is that most of these articles have stood here for over 11 years. Every single one would get declined at WP:AfC Spiderone 17:28, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Chasing Dreams (film)

Chasing Dreams (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFO; needs two or more sources to be eligible. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 16:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and there were no delete votes. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 ( talk) 00:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Death of a Prophet

Death of a Prophet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES; none of the sources show significant coverage of this film. Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 16:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. ALthough the article in its current form is definitely lacking in citations, the movie clearly meets the notability requirements, being cited in article's beyond it's release [ [13]], [ [14]], along with a showing at the Black film Festival in 1991. [1] — Unsigned post by Lukestepford
  1. ^ "Harlem film fest features "other" Malcolm X Film". New York Amsterdam News (1962-1993). September 7, 1991. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Rupali Suri

Rupali Suri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

testing positive for COVID is not notable, in fact, not getting covid would probably be more miraculous. There isn't any meaningful coverage of her career nor did she actually place in any of the pageants she participated in. Praxidicae ( talk) 14:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 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) 01:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, Elgin

Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, Elgin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill congregation. Many churches are notable because they're listed on the NRHP. This one is not and, apart from a single 100th anniversary article in a local newspaper, there is no other WP:SIGCOV. schetm ( talk) 14:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. schetm ( talk) 14:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. schetm ( talk) 14:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:04, 2 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) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Atul Raghav

Atul Raghav (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Onel5969 TT me 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 14:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:02, 2 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) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Ilham Nagiyev

Ilham Nagiyev (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seeking consensus on whether this BLP meets notability requirements. It was previously deleted and recreated. It has sources and plenty of links, but to me it just doesn’t add up to much and I don’t think there enough here that’s solid and substantive enough to indicate that the subject is notable. Mccapra ( talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 13:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Sorry I didn't notice this speedy sooner. Y'all can always ping me on my talk page regarding speedy d's. Missvain ( talk) 21:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

ROLZE

ROLZE (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline A7 eligible article for a non notable rapper who a before search shows lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore subject doesn’t satisfy any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ KylieTastic, Good point! But from my experience, I figured the article creator would be the type to create and re-create the article no matter what, hence I thought it wise to follow the AFD process so in future a G4 would come in handy. Celestina007 ( talk) 14:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
A couple of things in this article are also on draftspace: Draft:PABLO and Draft:Deadeyes. These are clearly also not notable. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 18:00, 2 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) 01:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Noel Ben

Noel Ben (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No major works. Passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO - The9Man ( Talk) 12:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ( Talk) 12:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ( Talk) 12:17, 2 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) 01:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of motorsports people by nickname

AfDs for this article:
List of motorsports people by nickname (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This long, painful to read directory still contains the same issues that led to it's being nominated two times in the past. "It is just a laundry list of nicknames, many of which are either unsourced, or of drivers who aren't notable in the slightest." is a direct quote from the 1st nom, and is still a valid reason that has not been addressed. Furthermore, drivers which are notable enough to have their own articles, contain their nicknames in the opening sentence of their BLPs, in accordance with MOS:NAME. Nicknames alone should not be allowed to pass WP:LISTN. Also, the main person arguing to keep the list time has since been banned for sockpuppetry. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. A7V2 ( talk) 21:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Kalaf

AfDs for this article:
Mohammed Kalaf (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Survived first AFD as he played in international club tournament, which isn't enough to meet NFOOTY as his club was not from FPL -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 11:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:27, 2 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) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Ahmad Karzan

AfDs for this article:
Ahmad Karzan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Miraculously survived AFD the first time because he apparently played in AFC Cup (not sure, the link provided as a source is dead and not archived). BlameRuiner ( talk) 11:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Kathy Fagan

Kathy Fagan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I checked the references for this article, and they do not seem to qualify her for notability. She legitimately is a member of the faculty at Ohio State U., but does not hold a named chair and so does not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC. Ref #2 is a directory listing, ref #3 is from one of her book publishers (AGNI) and lacks independence, and ref #4 is a link to an Emerson College page that does not mention her. A Google News search turns up only 13 hits, most of which were created or influenced by her directly or were created by her publishers or Ohio State. There's a page on the LA Review that shows two of her poems, but says nothing about her. One result shows one of her works was "a finalist for the 2018 Kingsley Tufts and William Carlos Williams Poetry Prizes", but neither this nor any of the other awards she has won or almost won appears to be notable. Receiving a non-notable fellowship, as far as I know, does not qualify a person as notable, and none of her awards includes any reliable independent verification (though they may all certainly be WP:TRUE). Having published works does not make an author notable, and I was not able to find evidence of independent reliable published sources to qualify her as notable in her own right. I can find no subject-specific guidelines under which she qualifies, and she does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A loose necktie ( talk) 10:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:43, 2 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) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Sascha Bailey

Sascha Bailey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable due to insufficient WP:SIGCOV in RS. Other sources are either not verifiable, or not independent (self-written). May be created and largely written by user with WP:COI, potentially WP:Autobiography. Overall seems to fail WP:BASIC criteria for BLP. HiddenLemon // talk 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HiddenLemon // talk 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. HiddenLemon // talk 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. HiddenLemon // talk 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. HiddenLemon // talk 08:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Seems to be notable adding citation that is missing.is easy to do as there are a wealth of articles regarding this indvidiual the user requesting deletion seems to of created the crypto art page and may have a personal reason for deletion of this page.

While one of the references is self written this just seems to be in reference to who he is married too. The rest are the times. Daily mail etc and clearly not self written. The user attempting deletion also deleted this article from the cryptoart page https://fadmagazine.com/2018/12/14/sascha-bailey-aims-to-modernise-the-art-industry-with-new-blockchain-play/

Showing a clear want to remove this individual from Wikipedia for personal reasons.

Futher argument for Keeping is aside from the citations here s quick Google Search of this individual throws up 100s of results about art exhibitions modeling etc. As well as well over 800 photos on getty images. Deletion of acting section makes sense. However, given the sheer volume of google results this person has deletion of the whole page seems like over kill.

More references to art curation can be found with ease i.e https://www.wonderlandmagazine.com/2016/10/04/maverick-expo-fenton-sascha-bailey/

Proof of this individuals work in blockchain or crypto art is also available in many diffrent publications https://www.artmarket .guru/le-journal/interviews/blockchain-art-exchange/ (url broken up due to Wikipedia not alowing this site. However it is not of note to be added He is also featured as an expert on Crypto art in this business insider magazine article

https://www.businessinsider.com/64-billion-art-bitcoin-blockchain-picasso-lincoln-townley-2020-7

Futher and although this video cannot be used as citation due to it being hosted on a comoany youtube channel. It was originally posted to London live and Is useful in this discussion https://youtu. be/ojHS7NXE0_8 (url added space to wiki rules)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 ( talk) 10:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply 


— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
49.98.225.156 (
talk) 
09:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
  • comment so far in this discussion links to tatler, daily mail twice (one very negative) given one is deprecated but im sure you could find it on the wayback machine. The Times twice. Business insider. Wall steet international. London live again deprecated unfortunately but the evidence exists. As well as multiple small press outlets. That would give at least 5 extra citations. The japanese news is hard to find but it can be. This page can clearly be amended to be more neutral and the acting credit removed. But based on these major outlets. I put the case forward that deletion is unnecessary. Given all the links and citations provided, this person is of note and continues to be of note in the blockchain community. The links and citations for this i have provided above. Futher, it is clear that the yser asking for deletion has no Real knowledge of the crypto art space and edits that page sectively due to his own acknowledgment that he had not even seen the article from the upcoming in 2018 citing Sascha bbailey as one of the frist ppeople to create a crypto art eexchange. Finally he also seeks to delete the meta mask page this displays an unbelievable lack of knowledge about crypto etheruem or crypto art given that it is tthe most used plugin for this sector. All his edits on any crypto related suject should in this case be treated as highly suspicious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.98.225.156 ( talk) 14:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — Per moonythedwarf, furthermore, the sourcing doesn’t portray the subject of our discussion as being notable. Celestina007 ( talk) 04:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. Attorneys and art curators just get started at 26 years of age. Bearian ( talk) 23:05, 8 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) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Wazuh

Wazuh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced promo piece about non-notable IT security fork. Search found nothing more than passing mentions and the usual discussion forums, download hubs, etc. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP / WP:PRODUCT. Earlier PROD was removed without explanation, hence this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:55, 2 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. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Joan Bingham

Joan Bingham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBIO- notability is all inherited from her company Grove Atlantic. MrsSnoozyTurtle ( talk) 08:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This article has been included in the WiR Project: Women who died in 2020 Meetup. StrayBolt ( talk) 19:16, 6 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) 01:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Levee Spur, California

Levee Spur, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was gonna PROD this one, but decided this might be a decent discussion to keep around for posterity to show one of the worse examples of what happens when you mass-create geographic place stubs without actually looking into the sites. GNIS actually gets this one correct by calling it a Locale (geography). This is a literal railroad spur going to a levee. There is nothing notable about this place whatsoever. Hog Farm Bacon 05:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:49, 2 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) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Childers Road Retail Park

Childers Road Retail Park (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILL small 20-store strip center. Unreferenced since 2009, with nothing indicating any notability. Certainly does not have the community significance of a large mall. Does not meet WP:GNG MB 03:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. MB 03:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. MB 03:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

KEEP Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.27.67 ( talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. Stepping into the lion's den here...

If anyone wants this list userfied for the sake of lists of lists or something let me know. Missvain ( talk) 21:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of people who are left-handed

List of people who are left-handed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially an article that has a prior history of being deleted as unmaintainable listcruft, based on a largely non-defining characteristic shared by 10% of everyone. Just with another slightly different name. Past experience of this article shows it usually becomes a snowballing pile of unsourced, or poorly sourced, names of no practical or verifiable use to anyone. This article was created in May with the best of intentions, but is already heading the same way.

See the following for past deletions of similarly named list articles;

Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Essentially a nomination that is just WP:CRUFTCRUFT. The assertion that the page is poorly sourced is blatantly false as there are over 100 excellent sources which demonstrate that the topic easily passes WP:LISTN. And there are plenty more sources out there, including entire books on the topic such as Left-Handed History of World. If there are problems with particular entries (which the nomination doesn't detail) then they are best addressed per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". Andrew🐉( talk) 20:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination — passingly entertaining but unmaintainable listcruft. Doubtlessly there are specific professions and activities where left-handedness is relevant, but this list is far too general. The topic of left-handedness is notable and deserves an article, but we don't need this heap of trivia. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
WP:PLOT does not provide against what this list offers. The guideline clearly enumerates four cases of indiscriminate collections of information. The relevant section is number 3, which states Wikipedia does not use excessive lists of unexplained statistics, but this page is neither unexplained nor statistics. Each entry provides a link to an extant page and further describes who the person is. The page has a clear structure and its purpose is well described in the lead section. There are also notes throughout to explain minutia. JustinMal1 ( talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as a patently absurd recreation of an article overwhelmingly deleted twice. The English Wikipedia has 1.5 million biographies. Of course few are so notable as to have their handedness recorded (precisely because this is so trivial and arbitrary!), but this is not a defining characteristic as to have an article that could hypothetically be 150,000 entries long. Reywas92 Talk 22:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Categories are not irrelevant because WP:CLN explains that categories and lists are comparable and complementary; just different techniques for doing much the same thing. The breakdown into sublists is natural when you get many entries and this is exactly what is done in this list too – it is divided into sections in a similar way. The largest sections are those for which left-handedness is especially significant – baseball players like Babe Ruth; boxers like Marvin Hagler; and tennis players like Martina Navratilova. So, the list in question is neither arbitrary nor unstructured; it's exactly the same as all those other examples. Andrew🐉( talk) 08:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Again, cut the bullshit. CLN does not say "because one subject is categorized, another unrelated subject must be in a list" – of course you're conveniently neglecting that WP:CAT says "essential—defining—characteristics of a topic", which handedness is not, and WP:LISTCRIT asks "If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?", and these people are not famous for this trivia. Just because handedness may be significant for boxers does not mean it is significant for authors. Reywas92 Talk 20:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If you have evidence that these people were subjected to being "train[ed] out of the ‘defect'", then include it on the relevant page. This has nothing to do with a context-free list and is already discussed in the bias article. Reywas92 Talk 03:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
WP:SALAT states that overly broad lists can be mitigated by sectioning, as this list is by occupation. The page is no different than other lists of arbitrary associations such as List of people from Italy and complies fully with the guidelines laid out in SALAT. JustinMal1 ( talk) 14:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Point taken. These types of pages are what keep Wikipedia fun and interesting to newcomers. Once again, I'm falling back on WP:NOTPAPER. This page represents something to people, deleting it means stripping that away from those who view and enjoy it. I don't think it should be deleted just because precedent makes it so. There have been tangible improvements to this iteration from previous ones which negate the parallel between them. JustinMal1 ( talk) 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92 Talk 20:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I agree. User:Reywas92, Canvas Blatant at that. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 00:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes I'm well aware of this page, which says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Section Appropriate notification includes "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)". There is absolutely nothing wrong with this common practice, so piss off, both of you. Participants in these overwhelming consensuses (upheld at DRV) have a right to know !voter JustinMal1 above blatantly overturned it by himself by recreating this. Reywas92 Talk 03:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I created this page with good intentions of bringing back a list of notable left-handed people in a way that complied with Wikipedia guidelines. Previous iterations of similar lists were not well cited and redlinked. This page solves many of the issues other pages were deleted for and it isn't prudent to delete this page just because other, worse versions of it, were deleted. Comparing them as perfect equals disregards the improvements and alterations which make this page better. JustinMal1 ( talk) 14:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
False equivalence. 'Nuf said. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Previous delete discussions are always relevant for a recreated article. If nothing else, it gives those who support keeping a chance to demonstrate that the reasons for previous deletions have been addressed and no longer apply. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At least until the page can be auto-generated and maintained as a WP:Category. Seems like it'd be easy to run through all these entries and associate them with a category label, and then this page gets automatically managed. Adding the references here to the relevant pages would be a plus. jxm ( talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Categories are for defining characteristics. There is even less rational for a category than there is for a list. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was one of the users pinged above due to my participation in a previous AfD. The current incarnation of the article appears well-sourced and well-written. So, is the topic encyclopedic? Reviewing the AfD from 2007, it looks like at the time I felt it was not. Thirteen years later, I'm less sure. If the article could make the case that the handedness of those listed was in some way an important unifying characteristic, I'd be inclined to argue keep. Unfortunately, the article doesn't really do that. Is left-handedness in the general population significant enough to warrant this list? I think it might be too broad, and that the topic is possibly best addressed with more specificity, e.g. List of southpaw stance boxers, List of left-handed quarterbacks, Left-handed specialist, etc. But the inclusionist in me can see this list being useful to readers, as long as it's properly maintained. I think XOR'easter and Dream Focus both make strong, succinct points. The closing admin can consider this the softest possible "keep" if the decision is razor-thin, but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Best, faithless (speak) 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Adapt and Rename: for most individuals, left-handedness is irrelevant like having blue eyes. The list should be trimmed to include only categories where left-handedness is a significant factor in lives per RS. I think the narrows the list to athletes and musicians, possibly others if a case from RS can be made (as I believe it can for musicians and athletes, but clearly not politicians or comedians). There is already a list for List of musicians who play left-handed so one is covered (the difference between playing and being left-handed can be addressed in the article). If all that is left is List of athletes who are left-handed, rename the article after the trim.   //  Timothy ::  talk  22:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject is notable on its own and there are enough entries which are reliably sourced. Accesscrawl ( talk) 14:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For the vast majority of notable people this is not material, and for many it may not even be known. This will inevitably be always an incomplete list. I write this as a left hander. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
There exist plenty of lists on Wikipedia which are perpetually incomplete such as List of people from Italy. JustinMal1 ( talk) 19:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was also "invoked" by the ping, which I'm not used about (even if it was a debate from 13 years ago! I'm still of the same opinion that it's listcruft and unmaintainable. More, the value of this is a concern. Do we have lists of people with brown hair? Pedro :   Chat  14:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Left-handedness is well documented, and moreover is incredibly distinctive. Lists exist across the internet and even in published books with taglines similar to "did you know?" We would never make a list of people with brown hair because it's immediately apparent, whereas left-handedness is interesting and often even surprising. This page helps build a community around a group of people who are often taught from a young age they are wrong for being themselves. Providing a place to finding other people (often incredibly notable people) like them is a great use of Wikipedia space and valuable in its own right. JustinMal1 ( talk) 19:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Lol 10% of the population is not "incredibly distinctive." Why in the world should I be "surprised" that Mark Wahlberg, Napoleon, 50 Cent, and one of the Olsen twins is a leftie? Of course there will be about 10% of all famous people who are, and it's still mundane trivia that we don't even bother to put in their respective articles. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – or should that be "left great wrongs"? Reywas92 Talk 18:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The incidence of left-handers is neither arbitrary nor insignificant. For example, see Professor Selden explain why left-handers are over-represented in post-war presidential politics. Andrew🐉( talk) 21:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply
And the place for that is on the Handedness article, which covers all these issues. A list article does nothing other than illustrate that, yes, there are an arbitrarily selected number of left handed people that are notable. I don't find anything surprising about this, and indeed if it was significant or distinctive it would be on the articles of the individuals themselves. It usually isn't. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ongoing discussion both about whether this topic meets our criteria and whether a reconstituted scope (i.e. as a list of lists) would be appropriate. Relisting to see if consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:41, 2 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. Those interested in mergers or redirects can discuss on appropriate talk pages. I think keep makes sense and is consensus. TY everyone! Missvain ( talk) 01:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Fan Controlled Football League

AfDs for this article:
Fan Controlled Football League (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(was moved to Fan Controlled Football while I was writing up the below)

This was redirected to Salt Lake Screaming Eagles as per a previous AfD outcome, but now is being repeatedly recreated. Personally I can't see the qualitative difference between that version [20] and the current one that would justify this change, and no newer sources have been added... but then soccer league notability is not my forte. A re-assessment may help. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Comparing the history of the pages, you could probably get away with WP:G4. Even though the WaPo article is probably good, I don't think notability has been demonstrated for this league yet, as much of this is primary or violates WP:NORG, and I have severe promotional concerns with the way the article has been presented and written. SportingFlyer T· C 11:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Project Fanchise (unless that page should also be redirected to Salt Lake Screaming Eagles). The proposed league is not notable at this time, but the organization behind it is pretty borderline to meeting GNG. Most coverage on the league itself looks like WP:PROMO, such as announcing celebrity owners. FANchise owned two previous teams and keeps trying to launch a league, which does give a bit more coverage in both WP:RS and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE sources. The fact that they have change the proposed league name now four times in three years makes none of them notable as far as I can tell. Yosemiter ( talk) 16:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It seems moot point at this stage. The league is schedule to begin in less than three months, and it seems that there is a strong media coverage when you look at it online. What's the point in redirecting it again just to start a new argument for it in a few weeks? (regarding the promotional concerns - it's looks borderline ok to me, but I guess it's something that will be corrected over time...) Ccui123 ( talk) 00:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article looks well referenced and supported by be reliable sources. The group of owners seems to also add to the notability of the league. I appreciated learning about it via reading the article, and would hate to not have it available to others on our encyclopedia.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 19:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:27, 2 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 Wilbur Hot Springs. Missvain ( talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Wilbur Springs, California

Wilbur Springs, California (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wilbur Hot Springs is a resort, and always has been. Perhaps some argument can be made that it is notable in that right, though I'm finding precious little to support that. But it is not a town and never has been. Mangoe ( talk) 02:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:02, 2 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 Neil Diamond discography#Compilations. Missvain ( talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Neil Diamond

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Neil Diamond (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article which currently does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 03:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 02:36, 2 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 Skeeter Davis discography. Missvain ( talk) 01:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

"Maryfrances"

"Maryfrances" (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article which currently does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 02:35, 2 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) 01:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Teddy Fresh

Teddy Fresh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails G11, A7, GNG and is promotional to say the very least. Speedy was reverted by Admin, so here's the AfD, folks... Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't really think this article is promotional. The available coverage is mostly contained to YouTube entertainment sites such as Tubefilter and Dankanator, but there is one sigcov article on Uproxx [21]. Definitely on the weaker end of WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Whilst there's no doubt the article could be improved with further citations, I agree that the article does not come across as promotional. Whilst the references are mostly contained to YouTube entertainment sites, these sites are also used for a plethora of YouTube related articles additionally it is supported by wider News sites. It's agreeable that the page is lacking in breadth, as I mentioned on the talk page. But I don't believe this means the page is worth deleting, especially when the article is already marked as a stub.
    The available references DO support that the company has a suitable amount of notoriety separate to that of H3H3, and so it makes sense to allow other users to build upon these foundations. The user who originally put the page up for speedy deletion was, quite frankly, being pedantic and felt like an attempt to prevent the page being expanded upon. User:Steel Centurion (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2020 (GMT)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Note the previous (and ad hominem) comment was from the page's creator. Nominated for speedy, tags removed by now-indeffed editor, restored by admin. A second editor then made a speedy nomination (I was A7, they went G11) before this AfD. A YouTuber's clothing brand, sold direct or via a single retailer. This is notability? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Very mild keep Needs links to newspapers of note or others, not just yahoo~ style or blog-type websites. Would seem to be an established brand but should really be talked about in the New York Times or such to be notable here. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete needs more notability to be kept up with additional sources. Eric Carr ( talk) 18:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I am the page's creator - To reiterate, while the article does include these Yahoo! type references, these are intended to open up the article and give it a bit more breadth. Speaking somewhat directly to User: Alexandermcnabb, is Uproxx or the Business Insider not considered a valid source? And if Tubefilter is not considered a valid source I'd like to question why it is valid in the contexts of other YouTube-based articles such as PewDiePie. I also believe that a 'single retailer', when not owned by the company themselves, does not diminish it's notability and fails to recognise the way many popular streetwear brands operate in the modern day i.e Supreme or Rip n Dip. Again, I simply believe it's worth keeping as a stub article as more references will undoubtedly become available as time goes on. Despite my years on this platform I am still a somewhat inexperienced user and so I do appreciate the feedback on this whatever the outcome for the article, thanks - Steel Centurion ( talk) 06:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I have not done a detailed search for sources so will not comment on notability. The Teddy Fresh Wikipedia article notes, "Teddy Fresh is an American streetwear brand established by YouTuber and artist Hila Klein in October 2017."

    There is a clear merge target at H3H3Productions (which Hila Klein redirects to) if the article is determined to be non-notable.

    Cunard ( talk) 00:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or Redirect to H3H3Productions. Blacklisteffort ( talk) 23:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 02:31, 2 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) 01:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Armorial of Prime Ministers of Canada

Armorial of Prime Ministers of Canada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this trivial intersection of characteristics is a notable subject. Fram ( talk) 08:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 08:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 08:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 13:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 02:19, 2 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. WK - improve please! Missvain ( talk) 01:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Final Cut (band)

Final Cut (band) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Industrial band from Detroit. The article originated as a redirect to The Final Cut (band) which has the same unreliable "sources" provided as this one. Then in 2020, the notorious Soul Crusher expanded the article, so now we have two articles on the same non-notable band. This is going to be a double deletion nomination, as I propose that to deletion as well:

That's the same band, the only difference is the word "The" in front of the name and the fact that the article has been sitting here since 2005, while this version exists since 2020. I don't see why we need two articles on the same band, especially when it's not notable. Anyways, the sourcing is dreadful in both articles - the record label, myspace and a blank Allmusic page, these don't establish any notability. As I see, their albums have been released on notable, major labels which is a sign of notability, of course, but I brought this here due to the sourcing, as the articles does not contain any RS nor did I found any (with the exception of the presented Exclaim link) - just the same old unreliable stuff: databases, WP mirrors, streaming links, youtube videos and blogs. I have found some album reviews but they are featured on blogs, and most of them are short. I have also found trivial news about them reissuing one of their albums, which I do not consider to be reliable. The only reliable source is this: Exclaim Album Review, and that's it. Allmusic has reviewed one of their albums, but it's a really short review, and the biography page of the band itself is blank, which makes it unreliable. The other album reviews I found are featured on blogs, which I have already mentioned. One decent source is a good start, but not enough. So, all in all, I think this is a non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 18:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The nominator uncovered a bizarre sequence of events. The Final Cut (band) has been sitting around for a long time, and Final Cut (band) (without "The") was a redirect to it until two months ago. But then User:Soul Crusher turned the redirect into an exact copy of the article it used to point to. That cannot be a beginner's mistake because copying from the older article requires knowledge of its existence, but the motivation for the copy/paste exercise is a mystery. At least one of those should be speedy deleted as a duplicate. Also note that the History/Biography section of the older article was almost entirely written in 2006 by User:Cr33py, who is also listed as a member of the band. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep (one of the duplicates) - The band just barely passes the notability requirements at WP:NBAND, but my vote is "Weak Keep" because most of their media notice is for one album. Deep Into the Cut was reviewed briefly by AllMusic ( [22]) and more extensively by The Quietus ( [23]) and The Wire ( [24]). The band also has a basic introduction at AllMusic ( [25]), though info on the band themselves is sketchy otherwise. In fairness it looks like they have enough for a basic stub article, though the one that remains needs to be pared down significantly to verifiable facts. From album covers it appears that Final Cut (no "The") is the true name of the band; admins can figure out how to preserve the history after the messy redirects and re-creations. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 20:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Oh, I just noticed that Cr33py is a member of the band, and yes, he wrote most of the article. So there is a massive COI involved. As for the sources, the Allmusic bio is brief, but it's okay for a start. The AM album review is really short - I have already mentioned that. The Wire piece is a basic short introduction and an album stream. I don't consider that reliable. The Quietus piece is great, as it reviews the album. So we have two good sources now: The Quietus and Exclaim. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 10:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- I'm an industrial fan! Clearly there are notable people *connected* to this band, but whether the band itself is notable I don't know. This article needs more RS - someone add the RS, if it exists, and I will change my vote. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 02:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep DOOMSDAYER520 has kindly offerred to work on the article, and I think the older one looks better sources than the newer one. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 08:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm not incredibly passionate about it, but in my "Weak Keep" vote above, I listed some acceptable sources. If the article survives, I can fix it up later by adding sources and removing junk. Admins should note that the redirect/duplicate situation also needs to be cleared up if one of the articles is kept. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 02:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 02:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I don't think any further relisting is necessary as we have a consensus for at least a weak keep for the band. What we need is for an admin to figure out which of the two duplicate articles to keep while preserving the edit history in whatever fashion is necessary per policy. Final Cut (band) or The Final Cut (band) -- and we can conclude that their name does not contain "The". Once that is done, I can spruce up the surviving article as noted above. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Anna Brumbaugh

Anna Brumbaugh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have struggled to find reliable, secondary sources that discuss this subject extensively - I have only found primary sources and passing mentions. I have a feeling it might be WP:TOOSOON for this musician to have a Wikipedia article per WP:MUSICIAN and GNG.

Thank you everyone for your consideration and volunteerism! Missvain ( talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain ( talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 2 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 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Missvain ( talk) 01:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Enforcement Division

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Enforcement Division (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Enforcement Division is not a notable enough topic on its own. It should be merged with the article for its parent organization, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnemeeples ( talk) 15:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Suggest a redirect to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and caution about what content to actually merge there. Much of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Enforcement Division article is unverified lore, facts that fail verification, and trivial lists of information. Little of the enforcement division article should actually be merged into Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnemeeples ( talk) 15:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 01:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Billboard Top Country & Western Records of 1951

List of Billboard Top Country & Western Records of 1951 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of Billboard Top Country & Western Records and Artists of 1950 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not a list of number-one country songs, just the top songs or artists from the year each ripped directly from a single issue of Billboard. This topic is not discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:NLIST. The number-one country song of each year is covered in List of Billboard Year-End number-one singles and albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This nomination appears to be a pointy response to my reverting the nominator's undiscussed page move. The AfD nomination was made three hours after the article was created and 13 minutes after I reverted the nominator's page move. I try to assume good faith, but it's challenging in this case. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I had already tagged the article for notability concerns. Issues with the name as well as the list are independent of each other, but both should be dealt with in case consensus is to keep. It is not encyclopedic to copy and paste the top lists from every Billboard year-end issue and Wikipedia should not be doing so. Should we have lists for each year's top rock songs, top R&B songs, top jazz songs, top streaming songs? Albums, artists, producers? There should be historical relevance/significance shown with coverage in independent reliable sources available to do so. It is well enough to note within the articles of the songs from these lists where it placed on the year-end charts, not republish Billboard's year-end issue in its entirety. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 01:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Billboard is the authoritative source for year-end rankings of historic songs from the 1940s and 1950s. As noted above, we have an identical series of articles on pop records which reflect Billboard's year-end charts. See Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1950, Billboard year-end top 30 singles of 1951, et al. Those have existed for years without anyone making claims of the type now asserted by the nom. How is it that this has never been a problem for the pop chart but it is now an issue when analogous lists are created for the country chart? Cbl62 ( talk) 01:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Also, the nominator's slippery slope argument is misplaced. During the 1940s and 1950s, Billboard published three types of charts: Pop, Country, and R&B. Each of these are enormously important in assessing and studying the history, development, and growth of American music during these critical decades. Nobody is suggesting that we create lists for other year-end lists published by bloggers or lesser publications. Further, the Billboards lists are not subjective, opinion-based "best of" lists. They reflect objective and official hard data on record sales and juke box plays. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Billboard is a primary and only source here, and I never mentioned lists from bloggers or lesser publications. Other independent reliable sources do not discuss these lists in any detail. Just because something else exists, doesn't mean it should and doesn't mean the scope should be further broadened. Are we just going to republish the entirety of Billboard's year-end issues now? That's where this will lead. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 02:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Billboard is indeed the primary source (it's their list after all), but it's not the only source. I've already added two other sources. As 1951 is in the pre-Interent age, sources are difficult to uncover, and an AfD three hours after creation is really a bit much. Nobody is remotely suggesting republishing entire issues of Billboard. That is simply an argument ab absurdum. Cbl62 ( talk) 02:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
If this survives, I don't see why others wouldn't be allowed to create lists from every year-end chart published from, for example, the 1979 year-end issue of Billboard. There are top lists for pop singles and albums, country singles and albums, soul singles and albums, disco hits, adult contemporary, Latin albums, classical albums, and jazz albums. I mean it's all history from the authoritative source that should be duplicated here for encyclopedic preservation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
This article should be judged on its own merits, not based on speculation that it might encourage someone to create an article on the best selling disco or Latin records of 1979. This is sort of a reverse OSE argument. (We already have the 1979 pop singles list BTW: Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 1979.) Cbl62 ( talk) 03:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It looks like a lot of puffery to me to make it look more substantial than it is. What does other people's lists from the year or noting a Time-Life release from 1991 that happens to contain some of these songs have to do with anything? It looks like you would be better off expanding the 1951 in country music article since the Billboard year-end list is not something discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as required per WP:NLIST. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Not sure why you're so determined to exorcise this article, but the article actually does now include independent sourcing discussing the group. E.g., this. Similar coverage of this type is likely available in multiple newspapers, but is hard to uncover in the pre-Internet era. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:59, 2 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 Princeton Public Schools. (Y'all can always ping me on my talk page if you see a snow-like consensus like this.) Missvain ( talk) 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Johnson Park Elementary School

Johnson Park Elementary School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 4thfile4thrank ( talk) 00:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:22, 2 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_December_2&oldid=993186171"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE