Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 20 November 22 >

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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 10:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Plaza Hotel, College Station

Plaza Hotel, College Station (  | 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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Run-of-the mill hotel, lacking any real notability beyond the local level. TH1980 ( talk) 04:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no indication of historic significance Spiderone 10:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This probably almost meets WP:GNG already, but I can't quite tell: a couple of the KBTX links are broken, I can't access The Eagle since that website is geoblocked. However, this was the first major hotel capable of handling conventions built in College Station, and while the archives I have access to don't cover the construction of the 17-storey high rise, the hotel received significant coverage during its construction: [1] [2] [3], noting how the building alone was the reason for a spike in building permit revenue [4] along with coverage of its sale out of bankruptcy court: [5] And its construction was even important enough to be blurbed about far away from College Station: [6]. That's just the construction alone, an implosion tends to generate GNG-calibre coverage as well and so I think this is an easy pass. SportingFlyer T· C 18:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, TH1980, and WP:MILL. This was a 17-story chain hotel in a college town. Coverage was local. How is that notable in any way? Bearian ( talk) 21:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Well, let's see - the building passes WP:GNG, was the first hotel in town which allowed the town to start hosting conferences, it was the tallest structure in town that wasn't a radio tower (according to Emporis) and it was imploded, which generated a bit of news coverage. I know everyone's saying WP:MILL here, but just being locally notable isn't a reason for deletion - I've finished a couple articles on hotels recently where the only major coverage was local, but the buildings are still important enough to warrant an article. I think this hotel also clearly qualifies - I think everyone is assuming that it's some no-name branded hotel by the side of the road, but it's not. SportingFlyer T· C 22:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Cine Capri

Cine Capri (  | 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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. It makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed normal WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL mentions/promos/ads, and directory style listings.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep This is a very well know landmark in Phoenix and covered in dozens of articles. A quarter-million people signed a petition to save it from demolition. The article needs better referencing. MB 03:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Like with Los Arcos, the problem here is lack of sourcing. There is also apparently a story from 1997 in Preservation magazine on the demolition; it is, like Los Arcos, going to clobber the GNG. Next time you see an article on a Phoenix-area topic, call on me or MB, because we have the Newspapers.com access to fix this sort of stuff. Here's just a taste: [7], [8], [9] [10], [11] Raymie ( t • c) 07:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily passes WP:NBUILD. Just needs to be properly referenced. SportingFlyer T· C 17:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If there is anything salvageable, let me know and I'll pull it from the article for you for merging. Missvain ( talk) 22:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Gran Bel Fisher

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

Released two albums for Hollywood Records, but one was only an EP. Appearead on a Greys Anatomy compliation but was only one of several acts.

Sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Searching back issues of Billboard along with newspapers.com yielded only passing mentions at best. Best I could find was one review from AllMusic. His content did not chart anywhere. The only two hits on Billboard.com are name-drops of him in the context of other artists or labels.

It was previously stated that he is a former member of the unquestionably notable Marshall Dyllon, but I'm having a hard time corroborating this. The claim seems to trace back to a long-defunct songwriter/publisher website added as a source to the Marshall Dyllon page ages ago, which doesn't even mention Marshall Dyllon at all. The insert in Marshall Dyllon's debut album, as transcribed on a long-abandoned Angelfire fan page, does claim that Jesse Littleton is from Sabina, Ohio, while AllMusic does give GBF's real name as "Jesse Littleton" and claim that he is from Sabina, Ohio. However, I'm not sure if a flyer issued as a bonus inside of a CD is a reliable source, especially when the only trace of it is the above transcription. I have found no sources whatsoever that have both "Marshall Dyllon" and "Gran Bel Fisher" in them, and you'd think that if he had been in another band, no matter how briefly, that at least one publicist would have made note of this. For this reason, I don't think that a merge/redirect to Marshall Dyllon would be warranted. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Whitehouse.org

Whitehouse.org (  | 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- WP:MILL comedy site which got some sparse coverage from notable media sources. At best, this is a case of WP:1E, with that one event being the conflict with Cheney's office. Outside of this one event, every last reference is either from the site itself (a primary source if there ever was one), or non-notable sources that, in some cases, would provide a "reference" for any website (like WHOIS). HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 21:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No view on the notability of the web site, but WP:1E has no application here. 1E applies to "individuals" notable for a single event. This AfD concerns a web site (not an individual) ... and one that has been operating for more than 20 years. The notability of the web site should be assessed under WP:GNG and perhaps also WP:WEBCRIT. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Cbl62, you have a good point. However, I fail to see how most of the coverage from mainstream media sources passes WP:WEBCRIT; I would argue that the only three references from reliable sources that count as vaguely notable are the first two New York Times ones and the Salon one, all of which are relatively brief and could be argued to not constitute significant coverage on their own; the second New York Times reference is about a play based on the website and makes only brief (about two paragraphs) reference to the site itself. The CNN reference is both mildly questionable in its status as a secondary source (it's an interview with the site's owner during an episode of a talk show, which I would consider to be a questionably independent source) and highly questionable in its notability (said talk show, while notable enough for its own page, is so obscure it doesn't even show up in the CNN Original Programming template), and the Washington Post reference is a dead link. I cannot find much else coverage of the site in the Find sources for Google News. Therefore, I would argue that it does not pass WP:WEBCRIT, and rather or not it passes WP:GNG is debatable. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be based on 3rd party sources, and for a long running website if there is really only one event that ever got quality coverage, we should not have an article on the website. The event itself does not seem to rise to being notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Meh. Barely notable and only sometimes funny. Bearian ( talk) 21:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Broderick, James F.; Miller, Darren W. (2007). "Chapter 97: WhiteHouse.org". Consider the Source: A Critical Guide to 100 Prominent News and Information Sites on the Web. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today. pp. 419–422. ISBN  978-0-910965-77-4. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

      The book provides five pages of coverage about Whitehouse.org. The book notes in the "Overview" section of the chapter:

      WhiteHouse.org is a satirical site—an acid-tongued spin on President George W. Bush and his administration. When you realize your mistake, you may be tempted to exit the page and head to the real White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov). But if you flee, you'll be missing one of the best examples of biting, incisive satire on the Web.

      As with all effective satire, Whitehouse.org is impolite, perhaps even a tough vulgar. Fans of the Republican administration will likely be put off by the harsh tenor of much of the site's "news" articles. But if you believe that the purpose of the popular press is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable (the creed of many professional journalists), you'll realize how firmly this site is rooted in the American tradition of muckraking.

    2. Ristow, Richard (September–October 2004). "Lampooning the Buffoon: fun on the internet at W's expense". Clamor. p. 21. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

      The article notes:

      Shortly after Bush was "appointed" by the Supreme Court, John Wooden thought Bush's new White House would be "super-meaty project." All he needed was a name, and the whitehouse.org web domain just happened to be free.

      Wooden's parody is a mirror distortion of the real White House's web site. Whitehouse.org is complete with clickable links to things like the Department of Faith, Homeland Security, and Fraternal Affairs. ... Back at Whitehouse.org, the main page also offers Onionesque press releases, including: "President's Armed Forces Radio Address to America's Troops on the Glorious Occasion of their Retroactive Induction into Eternal Martial Slavery" ...

    3. Weiser, Benjamin (2003-03-06). "Web Site Hears From Cheney After Parody Involving Wife". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

      The article notes:

      The site (www.whitehouse.org) lampoons senior members of the administration, from the president on down. The Bush Administration, it says on one page. Courage. Passion. Faith. Petroleum. Xenophobia.

      The site is meant to be a parody of the actual White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov), Mr. Wooden said.

      Mr. Wooden, of Brooklyn, said he has operated the site since 2001, and no one in the Bush administration had complained before the letter from Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington.

    4. This website Archive from the website's creator provides a list of media quotes about the website:
      1. “Hilarious” – The New York Times
      2. “In” – Vanity Fair
      3. “Spot on” – BBC
      4. “Hysterical… Searing political parody” – CNN
      5. “Brilliantly ham-fisted” – TIME
      6. “Scathing… Wickedly funny” – Detroit Metro Times
      7. “Offensive, irreverent… bitingly funny.” – Orlando Sentinel
      8. “The jury is out on Wooden’s ability to make anyone laugh.” – New York Post
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Whitehouse.org to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The Last Outpost (video game)

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

The only sources listed have been dead for years, and I can't find anything else about this game online (except for exact copies of this very article.) Most Horizontal Primate ( talk) 21:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Nick Roes

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

Certainly accomplished, but not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Searches did not turn up enough to indicate he passes WP:NAUTHOR, either. Onel5969 TT me 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Notability questions. I'm open to feedback from other editors on the notability. One of this subject's peers -- noted in the Wiki as a wiki link -- has fewer citations but a solid page which was considering in publishing this subject's page as they are related. I agree WP:NSCHOLAR and WP:NAUTHOR are not appropriate, but I feel WP:GNG standard is met with the handful of citations on the subject. Happy to work with other editors to improve the article accordingly. 10Sany1? ( talk) 22:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is so heavily promotional, so clearly based on personally-provided materials (e.g. "Certificate of Recognition from New York State"), and so unrelated to its creator's other edits as to make me strongly suspect undisclosed paid editing. Regardless of whether the subject is notable (and he may be, as a book author at least), WP:TNT or even possibly WP:CSD#G11 applies. More attention to possibly-promotional editing is warranted at a couple of articles that are otherwise unrelated: Caroline Casagrande and Jill Kelley (where the same editor was reverted twice by User:C.Fred and User:Fat Irish Guy). — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Apologize User:David_Eppstein if you are misunderstanding my edits. I closely follow many topics, including politics, history among other things. I also watch pages I edit as some editors seem to have personal issues with political figures especially, and violatae WP:BLP rules entirely.
Curious User:David_Eppstein help me understand what you feel is promotional in this article? Happy to consider your thoughts. 10Sany1? ( talk) 17:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
improved article removed info unrelated to subject as author or addiction specialist. Also pointing out William Richard Miller page defines a peer of subject, an article with fewer resources, books and citations. WP:AUTHOR should be reconsidered here. 10Sany1? ( talk) 17:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Still heavily promotional. If you are looking for tips for improvement, my first would be: disclose your conflicts of interest, as Wikipedia requires you to do. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I was not asking you how to improve the article, I was asking you to declare in what way you feel it's promotional, as it is not promoting anything. Can you explain why specifically you are saying this is promotional? There is no conflict of interest here, not sure why you immediately assume so? Not exactly assuming good faith. 10Sany1? ( talk) 19:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

10SFan ( talk) 20:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:31, 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 keep. Missvain ( talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of British Army Reserve Units (2020)

List of British Army Reserve Units (2020) (  | 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:GNG, WP:SNG and WP:ARTN and why do we need a list of units? Totally unreferenced and created by a blocked user BlueD954 ( talk) 03:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It needs to be better sourced and renamed (removing the "2020"), but it is a perfectly valid article as a list of current Army Reserve units. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Keep for what? You made no effort to address the issues. BlueD954 ( talk) 11:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Necrothesp. FOARP ( talk) 10:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Necrothesp and WP:NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. See why this PROD was deleted. BlueD954 ( talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no independent sourcing, lacks notability. Fram ( talk) 11:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - as I have repeatedly shown below, these units are attributed in multiple, independent, reliable sources. AfD is not cleanup. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      • As has been repeatedly explained to you, you need sources for the list topic, not for individual entries, to show that the list is about a notable topic. And as has been repeatedly said, you need to provide better sources; the first one you add is for the Honourable Artillery Company, where you start with this, which is their homepage. Nope, not independent at all, obviously. So why bother listing it, if not for reference padding, for showing "look how many references there are"? I'm not going to wade through that list of references if this is what you present (second source; [12] an army website, again not independent; then don't bother including it here.) None of the other HAC sources do anything at all to make "list of British Army Reserve Units (2020)" a notable subject. The sources in your next bullet point aren't any better, something like this is not giving any notability to this list, nor even to the RMRE. You include LinkedIn, for crying out loud. It's a laundry list of everything you could find, no matter if it was relevant, reliable, independent, ... No thanks, don't bother, it's desperate instead of convincing. Fram ( talk) 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Your feelings on this issue are leading you to make incorrect statements. The subject of this list is 2020; this means that citing all the independent sources - yes, including LinkedIn, that shows it's current this year - validate that the units exist - though you incorrectly say they're passing mentions, some are specifically on the units concerned. The point is that all the association and other sources prove the units existed in the last twelve or so months (and the Army sites back that up, which is why I also noted their existence). That was my objective. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
            • I don't think anyone doubted there existence, which isn't the reason this one is up for deletion or why I voted "delete". The lack of notability is not solved by primary sources, Linkedin, or passing mentions. Feel free to repost a heavily pruned list of sources which actually do show notability, as the ones I checked from yor list fell way short of that mark. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk ( talk) 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm not keen on the idea of having lists of military units with arbitrary dates, but this is a list of current units, which has obvious encyclopedic and navigational value. It's not "Totally unreferenced", and even if it was that wouldn't be much of a reason to delete it given that sources will be easily available. The fact that it was created by a blocked user doesn't mean it should be deleted unless it has no significant contributions from other people. I should point out that WP:LISTN says Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, so that isn't necessarily a valid argument either. Hut 8.5 18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comments Is there a reason that Units of the British Army, that includes reserves, couldn't be updated? Otr500 ( talk) 02:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Good point, so there is no need for this page. Mztourist ( talk) 08:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This article is far more detailed than that one so what you're suggesting is a merge rather than deletion. The destination article is getting rather long so it may still be a good idea to have a separate article. Hut 8.5 09:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Some of the Keep rationales have been rebutted here, especially on the quality of the sources, and one of them even suggests that the best plan would be to return the article to Draft for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Pro Wrestling Australia

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

Contest speedy for gregarious and unsourced reasons that smack of original research and fan bias. Previously redirected as Pro Wrestling Alliance Australia with the redirect later deleted as the target was redirected as well. Makes no claim in the article to notability and relies too heavily on it's own website, Cage Match and Wrestling Data. Therefore is not notable and is certainly not the "biggest wrestling company in Sydney" judging by the lack of sources that confirm the contrary Addicted4517 ( talk) 09:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Honest question, do you know anything about professional wrestling? and are you Australian?.If the answer is no to both maybe you should stop trying to interfere on professional wrestling pages. However if you think the PWA article should be deleted then I would propose you delete any article in relation to Australian independent Professional Wrestling as none of them are notable. The list of professional wrestling organisations in Australia article features promotions who do not run shows nor are as notable as PWA. So my recommendation would be to remove that article for not being notable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.101.171.34 ( talk) 07:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, yes and the remainder of this comment is entirely inappropriate as there is no understanding of policy, in particular about the difference between articles and lists like the list of professional wrestling organisations in Australia. Your original research re PWA's notability is against WP policy. If you believe PWA is notable you must locate sources to prove this, and as I have already looked and there are not there would be no point. This is not the case for Riot City Wrestling as an example. Addicted4517 ( talk) 04:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Also, even if we have articles for promotions that are less notable than this article that would be a case for deleting them not keeping this one.-- 65.92.160.124 ( talk) 22:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
One problem. All four links are promotional, especially the last two (with the first only being a trivial mention. There are also serious WP:INHERIT issues with the SMH article with all the mentions of WWE personnel, as well as similar but not as obvious issues with the Supanova article. It should noted with that link also that Supanova concentrated on the promotions that have a history of presenting shows at Supanova events, furthering the promotional issues. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Removing the last link, I think the content in the other three links are very objective and neutral, and when there is content as you are calling promotional, it is always a quote from someone else, and it is correctly indicated as being so. I also could not identify the same INHERIT issues as you did; none of the arguments used as example in INHERIT apply here. There are multiple personnel involved, and it just confirms that the promotion is notable. Also, it seems INHERIT is written for cases where there is no "verifiable" sources stating notability, which is not the case here. Mathias ( talk)
The moment a source is subject to WP:PROMO, it fails the test of objectivity and neutrality by default. Your use of the link with the WWE wrestlers is an example of the following per WP:INHERIT; "Keep: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable" Granted this isn't a list, but the concept of "lots of famous people" is the same. The reality is that as WP:PROMO rules these sources out, there are indeed no verifiable sources. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
An even bigger problem is that the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP which requires "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. So the first reference relies entirely on an interview with Ryan Eagles and has no "Independent Content". The next relies on information provided by a wrestler named Bonza and fails for the same reason. The next sees this organization included in a list but contains zero in-depth information as is required and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The final reference is arguably not a reliable source, is promotional, but also fails to provide any in-depth information and also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 18:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
PWA is fundamentally different than a list, so I still do not see how WP:INHERIT applies here. I have not seen in the archives, anyone claiming that a company does not inherit notability from their multiple products, or a school does not inherit notability from their multiple students, and this seems naïve per WP:INHERIT. Unless the company or school had a single notable product or student, which is the only case covered by WP:INHERIT. PWA is also a wrestling school, and these are often associated to their "alumnis"; actually, in this sense PWA seems as notable or more notable than many schools out there (exemple: Laanila_Highschool, Arsakeio_Lyceum_of_Patras, Escola_Alegria_de_Saber, Merici_Academy).
If for a second we consider the "school" side of PWA, its notability is further strengtened. For example, notable people that performed for PWA:
Also many of these links talk about PWA events. "Rock lost the Pro Wrestling Australia heavyweight title to Caveman Ugg this summer. He had defeated Robbie Eagles for the strap back in June." These statements assert the notability of whom? The wrestler? The event? The promotion? The discussions in the archives show public opinion would say it supports the notability of all of them, though the event would be ruled out for not having other supporting sources. The wrestler and the promotion seems to have enough support, though.
There also seems to be a large disadvantage because the promotion does not sell physical products, but rather events made by people and attended by an agitated audience, which is why sources on the promotion will often talk about certain wrestlers, or interview them about their experience; if they sold inanimate products, nobody would be saying PWA inherits notability of them, as is happening here. If you see the "product" as being the wrestlers that appeared in the promotion's events, many of these products are notable, as shown in the links above. The history of the promotion is the history of these wrestlers that achieved fame after passing through PWA, just like the history of your usual company is hardly based on the evolution of its products; again another reason as to why WP:INHERIT makes no sense to me.
I agree with HighKing that the sources I gave are individually not as rich in content as we would need, but summing up the numerous information about PWA events and wrestlers out there, I cannot agree that PWA does not meet the notability standards commonly accepted here on Wikipedia. I disagree that the sources are PRIMARY, though. The authors are not directly involved with the promotion, and they do offer their own analysis of the subject. Seems to fit WP:SECONDARY more. WP:GNG seems to apply if considering that the set of sources and statements constitute significant coverage, as seems to be the case to me.
"The moment a source is subject to WP:PROMO, it fails the test of objectivity and neutrality by default." seems like a convenient way to always make yourself right. In any case, I understand why one would see the sources as non-neutral, as it contains quotes from people. But quotes are quotes, and as long as they are clearly identified as being so, the content can remain neutral. In this respect, HighKing's arguments make sense, in that there is much less content if you remove all the quotes. But see the sources and arguments I gave above. Mathias ( talk) 05:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Clearly you do not understand the restrictions of inherited notability as you just did it again through every single name you put there - indeed as you admitted ("makes no sense to me"). The claim to notability must be neutral and independent of any other subject. You are in effect promoting the school yourself by using those names. As WP:INHERIT makes clear, that is an argument avoid in an AfD and yet you are trying to make such a case. And no, they are primary sources because they are promotional - that is, the promotion had massive input to the sources to the degree that all neutrality and objectivity disappeared. Taking quotes from involved wrestlers is risky at best to back that up. To that end you need sources that avoid these factors entirely, and they don't exist as indicated below by High King. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You have failed to make the case for WP:INHERIT here, as your best argument involves frivolously calling the promotion article a WP:LIST. Without the list assumption, you are unable to point out the argument in WP:INHERIT that applies here, as none of them refer to inheritance from multiple entities, nor to cases where the relation to other objects is notable per itself. Mathias ( talk) 04:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You listed notable wrestlers above in a manner that contradicts your claims entirely. Thank you. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Each of these claims have no sources whatsoever and should therefore be ignored, unless sources to prove them are provided. Addicted4517 ( talk) 02:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I think it is very rude to say his vote should be "ignored". Are you a moderator here? Even if you are, that is going too far... Mathias ( talk)
I was referring to his claims, not his vote. Please read what I said again if you wouldn't mind. Addicted4517 ( talk) 05:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I was not really focusing too much on the word "vote" when I commented. It does not matter. It is impolite to say anything anyone said should be ignored. Unless of course you are a moderator and, as a consequence, fully knowledgeable of the norms and policies around here. This does not seem to be the case, though, now that I searched. In general, not only your statement above, you are more assertive than your actual position and status supports, especially considering the conflict of interest, resulting from your involvement in this deletion process. I read Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process, and the "closing administrator" is able to make the right call to give less weight or not (notice how it is more polite to put it like this) to the vote of Pidzz, without your intervention or comment. Ironically, what might be ignored here is your undue intervention. Mathias ( talk) 05:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Again, you have failed to address my comment correctly. The focus was the claims, not the vote or the person. Your response here can be interpreted as willfully disruptive. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Leaving aside the fact that the article is totally refbombed with 58 sources, most are PRIMARY sources. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they are all promotional and/or PRIMARY and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/ WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
HighKing, I think the points you raised are very sound. I read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion and, if possible, wanted to know your opinion on merging the article on, for example, Professional wrestling in Australia. Mathias ( talk) 06:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
My opinion would be "No", for what it's worth. None of the promotions that do have articles are mentioned there (and nor should they be as none have done anything notable despite the promotions themselves being so although I query - and have done for some time - Melbourne City Wrestling's). To merge would be inconsistent, and would also attract random redirects of promotions that could never be made into articles going forward. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi MathArcher, it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this article. Be aware that you can always request that the article is moved to drafts so that you might continue to work on it and it would preserve the editing history. On the surface, there is a case for merging the article with Professional wrestling in Australia and is seems logical to discuss professional franchises and promotions in that article but Addicted4517 makes the point that the article currently doesn't have anything to say on those. That doesn't mean that a new section couldn't be created or wouldn't be relevant. You might want to ask at that article's Talk page? You could also create a "List of wrestling promotions in Australia" article and describe each promotion in a short paragraph. HighKing ++ 12:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Ok, thanks a lot for replying, HighKing. I will consider your suggestions, particularly the tlak page one. There already exists List_of_professional_wrestling_organisations_in_Australia, but the edit history suggests that Addicted owns it, so I do not intend to touch it. Also thanks for the cordiality. Mathias ( talk) 04:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
No one owns anything on Wikipedia. My activity on that page is simply to maintain the established status quo with such lists that is "no entries that do not have articles on Wikipedia". That is not owning the page. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

KEEP This article should be kept as PWA is one of the leading promotions in Australia. I am working on reliable secondary sources to cover this article. But if anything at this stage, let's see it moved back to the draft space until it is sufficient for those involved to see it moved back to the main article space. Even last resort, as mentioned above, added to professional wrestling in Australia in a paragraph. There is a severe lack of coverage of Oceana professional wrestling in the notability essay which is a bias towards this region, something on which we should all work on changing. Let work together! Thank you. Jammo85 ( talk) 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

There are no reliable independent secondary sources. This has already been established. Sending it to draft is not an option as it has already been brought out of draft prematurely three times. That can not be allowed to happen again. The reason there is no coverage is quite simple. It is not notable. There are no sources that pass the requirements of this online encyclopedia. When there are no sources that pass all the required criteria, articles are deleted. That is just the way it is. This promotion is not notable. It is NOT "one of the leading promotions in Australia" because there are no independent reliable sources that recognise it as such. That being case, claiming that it is would be original research. The option of merging with Professional wrestling in Australia has already been addressed. There needs to be a local event that had major coverage for it to be included, and there has only been one (the one that is already there). Addicted4517 ( talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, we all know your stance on this. Reliable independent and secondary sources should be available for this article in the near future. So seeing this article back in the draft space would be optimum over a deletion, because the page will just be re-created when these sources are available and I can predict what will happen. Jammo85 ( talk) 14:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
It is not my stance. It is fact. There are no reliable independent secondary sources. Your prediction is a violation of WP:CBALL and is therefore not relevant. It will not go back to draft because Pidzz will just put it back into the main space again without a review as he has done three times already. This promotion is not notable under the rules already noted. Your arguments fail multiple points in WP:ATA. WP:SOURCESEXIST, a version of WP:MERCY and a less blatant version of WP:ILIKEIT than Pidzz are the stand outs. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Concertmusic: Both of the first two links are promotional and are therefore not independent and can not be used to prove notability as a result. The last link only makes a casual mention of PWA and concentrates on the female wrestlers and the subject of intergender wrestling. The article is also more focussed on Melbourne than Sydney as well. The issue with the lack of independent reliable sources remains as is. There are none. Addicted4517 ( talk) 04:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - neither of the sources provided by Concertmusic could be considered "promotional" - the SMH and ABC are clearly sources that are independent of the organisation, particularly the former. This meets GNG, despite the state of the article (which is not an issue for AfD). Deus et lex ( talk) 09:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Deus et lex: It would appear that you did not read the ABC link. It makes one casual mention on this promotion. I was not referring to it as promotional. The two I was calling promotional were the Kokatu link and the SMH link. The SMH link is definitely promotional on the headline alone where it quotes the promotion itself. It follows this with two biased remarks without proof in the first paragraph alone ("Australia's top professional wrestlers" and "its grandest ever show") and then quotes from the wrestlers themselves before the clearly promotional quote at the end of the article. It does not matter that the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source normally. In this case they are promoting an event and it invalidates the article as independent. Addicted4517 ( talk) 10:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It is not a promotional article. The SMH is independent of the source. The fact that it talks about an event does not make it unreliable. A promotional article is one that is sponsored by the event or something like that. This does not fall in that category. Your statement is not correct. I think you need to accept that this article is covered by valid sources and stop trying to draw some spurious argument about sources to make a point that isn't there. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
And just to add, if it was something sourced from a media release, it would attribute something to a "spokesperson" or something like that. This article does not do that. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It is a promotional article. It does not have to be paid for - that's WP:ADV. The language used in the article is clear. It is promoting the event, and is therefore not independent. Do not assume based on SMH's general reputation. The specific source is not reliable. Besides as High King pointed out above there needs to be at least two to pass WP:NCORP. Also, the quotes are effectively press releases. I think you need to accept that this article has no independent substantive reliable coverage and that my argument is not spurious. It is strong based in policy and a failure to recognise promotion when one sees it doesn't assist the opposed view. Addicted4517 ( talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I really get frustrated when I have to engage with such nonsense arguments like this on AfDs (and there's some pretty bad arguments added on AfDs about sources out there). You are just making things up and reading something into a source that isn't there to argue a point that is soundly wrong. There is nothing in that article that suggests it is promotional. The SMH is a longstanding independent newspaper and has a good reputation for good journalism. It is an ordinary journalistic article. Deus et lex ( talk) 11:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It is clear here that you have failed to recognise a promotional article when you see one. I am not making things up. You are trying to place the SMH's reputation ahead of the individual article, and that is an error on your part. It is an ordinary journalistic article that promotes an event. A refusal to see this really frustrates me. Addicted4517 ( talk) 22:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
That doesn't make the article promotional. If you say that article is promotional then any article that talks about an event or something happening would fall foul of that policy, meaning that the only articles possibly used for reliability are critical ones. That would rule out a whole swathe of articles that are validly used in countless other articles. Promotional articles have to do a lot more than just talk about that an event is happening. This is not one of them. Deus et lex ( talk) 01:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Return to Draft - If this article is kept it will be the wrong decision even though consensus appears to be otherwise. Addicted's arguments can't be ignored; except for one. Returning it to draft. Jammo has claimed fresh sources and he should be given the chance to provide them and draft mode would be ideal for this. Addicted's concern over Pidzz restoring it again can be prevented by an administrator locking off the move option to prevent this. That way it can be independently reviewed once Jammo finishes his claimed work, but if he doesn't and leaves it for six months, Addicted will get his way anyway. I think this is the best solution for the prevailing situation. Wang.Wahine 00:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Can a move be blocked without blocking other things as well? Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Yup! Wang.Wahine 05:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This could be closed as merge, as it has been done previously, however there is no one coming up in favor of merge after second relisting. (non-admin closure) SMB9 9thx my edits! 07:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown

2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS WP:GNG, common sense. Non-notable military incident with no consequences to aviation regulations or procedures and minimal diplomatic consequences. Military accidents/incidents are generally not notable in their own right. Petebutt ( talk) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Գարիկ Ավագյան, this seems a textbook example of WP:ASSERTN. Can you explain why you think the subject is notable? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 17:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Brigade Piron, there is still investigation going on this incident. We need a bit more time for serious analysis, however there are already claims from experts that the main purpose was to disrupt the ceasefire agreement in Karabakh. And probably, this was done from Turkish border/by Turkey. After this incident, the agreement were signed between three countries, not including Turkey itself. So, this incident is a precedent of the end of 2020 Karabakh War. I suggest not to remove immediately, but to wait a bit more. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 17:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Գարիկ Ավագյան, that sounds like WP:CRYSTAL? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
That does not explain by any stretch of the imagination why is this article supposedly less notable than others. Super Ψ Dro 00:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The Bushranger:
1. The shootdown is not WP:ROTM for at least two reasons. Firstly, it was a shootdown of the military aircraft of a non-belligerent power. It is not run-of-the-mill to shoot down military aircraft from a power you are not at war with. Secondly, the shootdown did not occur in a warzone. There were no hostilities near the Nakhchivan-Armenian border. It is not run-of-the-mill to shoot down military aircraft far from a warzone.
2. As for the "notability is not inherited" argument, I'm not sure why you think that it applies. If the shootdown lead to the armistice, it is only because the shootdown was independently notable, because it could have drawn Russia into a conflict with Azerbaijan, which could have led to a Russo-Turkish war. Even if it had been an Armenian aircraft that was shot down, it could have triggered the Russo-Armenian mutual defense treaties (the CSTO and a separate 1997 treaty) and Russia's entry into the war given that the shootdown occurred inside Armenian airspace proper. So no, the shootdown was not simply an event that may have led to the ceasefire. It was already notable before the ceasefire.
-- JECE ( talk) 15:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I initially closed this as merge but have been asked to allow more opportunity for discussion, which is not a bad thing in general terms
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 22:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Chengmai Center

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 TT me 19:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Tradewinds Square Tower A

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 TT me 19:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Guru Nanak. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of places visited by Guru Nanak

List of places visited by Guru Nanak (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely unreferenced list that, I believe, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Will happily withdraw if it turns out that these visits form a coherent set meeting WP:LISTN— Guru_Nanak#Journeys_(Udasis) suggests that they might—but at present I'm not seeing it. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is merging an unsourced list a good idea?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Feel free to discuss mergers, if of interest, via the merge process on talk pages. TY! Missvain ( talk) 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Tapete

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

Zero in-depth coverage that I could find. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 23:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Joan Brown (artist)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. The article is based primarily on a primary source interview. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even by the standards of 20th-century Oklahoman women artists, this person is incredibly obscure. It appears people might be working their way through the Oklahoma Native Artists Oral History Project at OSU and creating articles for everyone interviewed in that project? Those are primary sources, not secondary published sources indicating any degree of notability. Ahalenia ( talk) 03:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the chapter in the Broder book looks fine, but you can't base an article on only one decent secondary source. No luck in searches. There should be more articles on Native American women artists, but unfortunately this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio ( talk) 00:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Switch to Keep due to the excellent work done by Jooojay. A surprising and welcome rescue. Curiocurio ( talk) 13:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – this article needed more clean up in my opinion. I added a few new citations (it's now up to 14 sources) and I believe this passes WP:GNG now. It's hard to find sources because "Joan Brown" is a common name and a lot of the wrong sources show up, she does seem to have significant press and experience within the Native American museum scene and her alma mater Bacone College has a notable art program. She was mentioned in many sources as one of the well known artist from Bacone College, which I think fulfills WP:ARTIST. Jooojay ( talk) 08:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – There may be a COI issue with this article, I noticed one editor used a primary source from the University of Oklahoma interview and they went on to use more primary sources from that same publisher in many other article related to the arts and the museum. A notice was left on the talk page. Jooojay ( talk) 09:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep The Joan Brown who is the subject of this article is a well known Cherokee artist. Numerous sources confirm she was a leading artist among her peers in her prolific period [25], [26], [27] and being asked by Red Earth Festival to participate in the oral history project is clear indicator of her notability. She wouldn't have been asked to exhibit at the Cherokee National Museum [28] had her tribe not felt her work was exemplary. Being designated a Master Artist of the Five Civilized Tribes Museum is a significant award for Native artists. [29] Having pieces in major Native American galleries, collections, and museums is significant. [30] [31] [32] [33] There is adequate information here to confirm that she is notable. (Given the time frame that she was prolific, and the closed nature of Native American art circles, major repositories like the collections at the Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, or Bacone College are the likely places one will find material on Native subjects. I have been unable to find archives of Muskogee, Tahlequah, or Tulsa newspapers which cover the 1970-1990 period, but those are far more likely to carry information on her than papers in Oklahoma City.) SusunW ( talk) 15:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Every artist who exhibits gets written somewhere about but wp:artist provides clear notability requirements:
"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
"The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Which of these criteria apply to this artist? Ahalenia ( talk) 16:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia reply
Comment For the purposes of AFD, it is sufficient to pass the lower threshold of WP:GNG, which this artist clearly does. Curiocurio ( talk) 18:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY adding a dozen WP:RS to the original 2. Nice work @ Jooojay: Theredproject ( talk) 15:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per the excellent research and improvemnt work of Jooojay, the artist passes WP:GNG. Netherzone ( talk) 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The improvements make this article a worthy encyclopedia entry with good sourcing and support. I would encourage previous reviewers to take another look.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – this is an example where adding a tag like {{more refs}} would have been more appropriate first, especially if the proposer has difficultly finding references for a person with a common name. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-This article is worthy of keeping as Joan Brown in a significant Oklahoma artist. This page has been critiqued for using sources too closely connected with the state of Oklahoma and its universities. However, due to the regional nature of native art and the lack of nationwide focus, it is the state universities of the artist's home state who are most interested in collecting those stories. Mrs. Brown happens to be from Oklahoma and thus OU and OSU are most interested in her stories. While the original article did indeed focus heavily on a interview with Mrs. Brown, the article also included several books and newspaper articles, which conforms to Wikipedia's notability and proper source standards. The number of those secondary sources has since increased. Moreover, she has exhibited in several galleries, and so while she meets the lowest standard of notability, she is notable nonetheless. Though she has a common name and is not well known outside of Oklahoma, Joan Brown is a notable figure in the Oklahoma Native artist community and should not be excluded from Wikipedia for insignificant reasons. Yes, the author is trying to fill in the blanks of Native Artists in Oklahoma, however simply because these artists do not currently have Wikipedia pages does not mean they are insignificant. The goal of Wikipedia is to fill in those gaps and to easily share information with others. And many of the artists found in the Oklahoma Native Artists Project collection are indeed notable and found in many books, newspapers, and exhibition catalogs, which all meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It is simply an issue of no one bothering to translate that information to Wikipedia until now. Claire.ringer ( talk) 22:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Essex 73's

Essex 73's (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All 900+ words are unverified to any reliable sources, failing the notability guideline for 14.55 years, now. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. Every other team in the Provincial Junior Hockey League have articles. - SimonP ( talk) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I've added some refs. A ProQuest search finds 3,700 articles on them, so plenty of reliable sources. - SimonP ( talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Now that is has SOME sources, I've removed anything else that wasn't cited (IAW the verifiability policy). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. You are thus removing your deletion request? - SimonP ( talk) 21:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I am not an administrator who has found a consensus that the page in question meets the notability guideline. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    But on a personal level, are you now supportive of the article remaining to get to that consensus? - SimonP ( talk) 21:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I personally wouldn't consider three local news reports over the span of 1.17 years to be significant coverage, but I of course support leaving this discussion open to allow other contributors to evaluate otherwise. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    You don't need an administrator's approval to retract your own AfD nomination. You can certainly do that yourself. Ravenswing 04:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, that's not what I meant to imply; I should have been more verbose. I want the discussion to run its course and attract as much attention as it deserves, obviously deferring to an administrator if they determine that consensus warrants early closure. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The team in question meets WP:GNG and there is room for improvement. A poorly written article is not grounds for deletion. Flibirigit ( talk) 16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which was not the case upon nomination nor at this time. As for [a] poorly written article not being grounds for deletion, I have no objections to the demolition of that straw man. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. Also, mass deletion of unsourced info is bad etiquette per WP:POINT and is considered blanking. Consider inline source tags in the future please. DMighton ( talk) 16:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    The behavioral guideline on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point doesn't seem applicable based on a reading of that page. The verifiability policy says that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." There's currently a spate of activity in the article; when it's done, I'll again remove all unverified claims in the article in accordance with that policy. As for inline source tags, I have considered it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    And you will be reverted. Do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced. as per WP:POINT. DMighton ( talk) 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I don't think you're reading those pages in their entirety.
    The verifiability policy says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." There are encouraged caveats, but they do not abrogate the wherewithal to remove any unverified material.
    The behavioral guideline on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point says, "If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content... do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source. do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced." You quoted the third part, which depends upon the first, which isn't the matter at hand. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, I read just fine. Actually - it is the matter at hand. You were disruptively making a POINT. WP:POINT does not allow you mass blanking. You unfairly removed content, it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users.
    I would also like to point out that according to WP:BLANK, instead of the mass removal of information that you don't find adequate, list for deletion (which you did) - not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it. Also, WP:USI recommends that you ask for citations. Initially, you were WP:BOLD, but now that it was questioned... requesting citations is better etiquette. DMighton ( talk) 22:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    You were disruptively making a POINT. Given I'm wholly unaware of it, can you educate me as to what point I'm attempting to make by removing " [a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it"? You unfairly removed content What exactly is "unfair" about removing claims that lacked sourcing, a process provided for by the verifiability policy. I didn't redact the page's history; it's all still there to be read and sourced if possible. […] it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users. When it's challenged, unverified claims should only be reintroduced to an article with " an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." […] not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it. Again, I need your guidance on exactly what point I'm attempting to make. I removed the unverified claims from the article because they were unverified, not as an end-run attempt at manual deletion. As it stands, 81.92% of the prose is unequivocally unverified as required by policy, and—without regard to the outcome of this deletion discussion—if it continues to be so, I (or possibly anyone else) will remove it duly. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Look, I'm not looking for a pissing match - this is getting into the realm of TL;DR territory. I've told you my view and I believe you are wrong. It seems we will not be agreeing with each other and that is fine. The "disruption" and "unfairness" I see is you removing content that other people may have sourced if you had of actually gone to the bother of tagging as unsourced - that is my quibble. This impedes others from possibly rectifying the situation. Instead of allowing the AfD process to play out as it should, you started blanking content. As none of the content is controversial, I suggest you take a softer approach. From WP:VERIFY, In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.. As you say, 81.92% of this 900 word article is currently unverified by inline citation - that will take some time. Patience is a virtue. DMighton ( talk) 02:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    The situation was an article which lacked verification for most of its claims; I rectified that situation. The AFD process (this very page) is still proceeding as it should. Your suggestion has been seen. We have been patient for over fourteen and a half years. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The improvements are appreciated, and provide additional referenced support to clear that bar for me. I also see the original blanking attempt, which I just don't understand. The nominator then listed for AfD - why not go there in the first place if you knew how to do so? Lastly, as a member of a set of articles, this piece is a necessary piece of a larger puzzle.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    As far as I can tell from the page's history, it's never been blanked. I, the nominator, proposed the article for deletion because it'd never been sourced in its entire 14+ years; after Flibirigit ( talk · contribs) removed the {{ prod}} template, I brought it here. When SimonP ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) provided a few sources for the first time, and there was a legitimate aticle upon which to build, I removed everything else that was unsourced (in addition to other edits). My sequence of actions was PROD → AFD → V, none of which involved blanking.
    As for being "a member of a set of articles": I'm sorry, I honestly didn't know that such articles couldn't be deleted. What does that policy or guideline say, specifically, about my malfeasance? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • My apologies on the blanking accusation - not really sure what happened when I checked it and received a blank page, which now does not happen. Having said that, I am certainly not making any claims to malfeasance - but am simply stating that I much prefer to have an article relatively untouched for a fair evaluation at AfD. I do feel that if this article was deleted, the entire set about the teams in the league would be worse for it.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 19:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Dimagi

Dimagi (  | 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. WP:MILL. Fails WP:ORGCRITE, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep Talk 01:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 14:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr ( talk, contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
* https://money.cnn.com/2008/12/26/technology/mobile_health.fortune/ We're tackling problems that make economic sense and are something we care about and think we could make a big difference in," said CEO Jonathan Jackson Fails WP:ORGIND.
* Dead Link Dead link.
* Vikram Sheel Kumar: Software Design Kumar hopes that within five years Dimagi will have designed more open-source software that, like the Zambia application, can be adapted for use worldwide. Fails WP:ORGIND.
* Company site
* [34] Dead link. An event listing.
* [35] Dead link
* [36] Malware page
* [37] Dead link
* [38] Genuine ref.
* Optimizing Network Connectivity for Mobile Health Technologies in sub-Saharan Africa A paper written by a Dimagi employee. Doesn't establish notability.

I don't think there is sufficient references to support it. Their app works in 80 countries, so there must be some coverage. It think if it is found found notable, it should draftified until it is improved. scope_creep Talk 09:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some discussion now of draftification, so giving this a third relist to see if a consensus can be formed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Please see this 36-page paper by the World Bank, which could literally be used to cover all of this article in references. The paper contains 2 pages of its own references. As far as I am concerned, this resource by itself covers all concerns. Having said that, there are 980 hits when searching Google Scholar, and a number of those lead to citations referencing the subject in scholarly journals.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 19:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree with Concertmusic, the significant coverage is out there (even if its not in the article) based on a search of Google Scholar. I don't personally think the article is in that bad of shape such that it needs to be moved to draft, but I also wouldn't oppose that. Regardless, I don't think it should be deleted on notability grounds. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 01:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
They're fat reports all right, no doubt. I think I'm ready to bale out. Do you fancy updating the article @ Concertmusic:. I will get rid of the old references that have been identified as true junk. Nomination withdrawn scope_creep Talk 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I've taken out three dead refs + a malware page ref. scope_creep Talk 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I'll take a look in the next 1-2 days to add the sources where appropriate. Thank you!-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:29, 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 no consensus. The discussion has been a bit of a mess, but trends towards keeping if anything. Sandstein 11:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Rio Monterroso Culvert

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG / WP:NBUILD. Per the creator's own admission, there are no references to be found, and at least some of the content is their own WP:OR. (There is, admittedly, one RS cited, but it relates only indirectly to the subject matter, and doesn't even mention the culvert in question.) Has been draftified and rejected at AfC multiple times, but the creator insists on publishing it. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

It is noted that the Monterroso river was recognised by its town as “the most important river in estepona” and did stand out hugely in Estepona’s town before being culverted however, due to its situation,lack of geological information and the culverts physical shape (tourists suspect a random tunnel in the middle of a beach is sewerage) most tourists do not recognise that it is a natural geological river. I am aware that the lack of encouragement to study and explore this rivers history results in a lack of citational information that exists, or official sources that have been destroyed by age due to the fact that the culvert is extremely old. There are very few youtube videos on this subject however one that may be a reliable source shows the culvert being measured on google maps. There was a info bar on the video where all google earth graphic visuals are credited, The bar notes Geogr. Nacional, Landsat / Copernicus, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA and GEBCO. I have taken into note that the citations on the subject has basically become so old that they don’t exist anymore. The Wikipedia article was created to raise awareness about the subject so that it does not drive away tourism and that it is not a wastewater plant, it was a natural river course once. It was also created to educate people around the world about the large culvert system. I personally think that with corrections and many more changes to the article, which may eventually cause it to become fit for purpose, that the article should not be deleted currently. Thank you Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 12:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Most of the sources cited in this article are Google Maps or images (not all of which are working properly); the only textual source cited is a newspaper article which is only seven sentences long. For some reason, this article begins, "This article has been extremely hard to find citations for. Most citational materials or people involved with the subject of this article has either been destroyed by age or passed away." The culvert in question wasn't built in ancient times -- according to this article, it was built between 1965 and 1973. Or, in other words, it was completed during the adult lives of many people still living. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Other than semi working google links there is not much citations or information in the river or culvert. When I started studying the culvert 2 years I personally thought it was a storm drain, I did not know anything about the fact that it was/is a river. Once I found out that it was a river by tracking along the road and found the inlet of the culvert, Googling its name came up with absolutely nothing other than several websites about them attempting to troubleshoot its wastewater problem. There still is today almost no citations to look for on the web that are worthy for use on the article. I am now currently deflated of all citations and ideas other than adding a statement noting about the lack of citations, or to keep on searching for citations or adding the photos that was linked, directly into the Wikipedia article without needing to press on intermittent links May have a chance. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Not all published sources are online. Some might be available in printed newspapers or books that are not available online. But there have to be published sources to support the facts in an article; if there aren't published sources, the article isn't verifiable and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • keep The Burj Khalifa is also a general concrete structure yet it is noted as currently the largest building currently existing at 828 metres high. The monterroso culvert is measured at 1,160 metres long which is a 332 metre difference. It is certainly not the longest concrete structure ever built however it is certainly a candidate for longest and/or largest concrete box culvert ever created. It would be a lot easier if there is some type of database that people can compare concrete culverts to. The main goal here is to get some type of citation or data. Other than in person making a video with a measurement tape get there’s not much on the monterroso river culvert. What makes the situation worse is that I do not know Spanish. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 18:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep and recast as an article about Rio/Arroyo Monterroso generally. I imagine that sources about this river/culvert exist offline (e.g. Spanish newspaper archives), but I don't have access to them. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I recast the article to be about the river and am now !voting keep. I think there is enough information about the river generally, and if Ekec... can find enough reliable sources to write about the culvert, perhaps that could be be broken out eventually. But at this point I don't think it a separate culvert-specific article is appropriate, given that there isn't much reliably sourced information about the culvert specifically. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Facebook is absolutely packed with citations about the river monterroso culvert and the river itself, but I don’t think that Wikipedia accepts Facebook cites. however, A portion of the posts are photos that may possess the correct cite worthy information. There is also a book called “Aqua Nostra” [1] That note water related things in Andalusia, Page 120-121 in that book notes about the river monterroso. There also is a website citing about the river monterroso’s history [2] It also notes something about when the river monterroso culvert was in its final construction (1972-1973) Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 19:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank You Calliopejen1. You may have saved the article from potential deletion. In the far future I may add small amounts of photos of the monterroso culvert but not claim anything except depicting the photo. Hopefully a administrator will close the AFD soon and potentially retract its deletion.


    • Keep The river itself is a lot less notable than about the culvert itself. My personal choice is to see what happens to the article. Due to the fact it’s my first article I have a extremely limited knowledge about how to make the article better however other people may vary. At this point I personally think that the delete notice should be removed because it is no longer in as much of serious state as it was. After all
—-> the main reason the delete notice was raised was due to the lack of citations which have been sorted out<—-

I still agree that the article is a mess but can’t find the solution to make it “look” better. Feel free to alter its layout but refrain from removing information. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 16:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

You have already voted. You only get one vote. Spiderone 20:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I have tested the article out on the web and I agree that the article looks extremely messy. Edit: I have now fixed the photo positions for people who view the article on the web. Hopefully it doesn’t look as messy as it was before. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 21:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I am a anonymous user just browsing through Wikipedia and I don’t think the article should be deleted. A few days ago the article looked horrible but I am pleased to say it looks great now. I am on the side of the defendant. The article now looks too good to be drafted or deleted. My vote is now

  • keep

I heavily recommend people in charge of Wikipedia should retract the deletion leave the article standing. 2A02:C7F:7282:1100:5D48:1238:1CE:DC10 ( talk) 23:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:7282:1100:5D48:1238:1CE:DC10 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  • keep

The article deletion was raised due to the reasons noted in the first paragraph at the top of this aFd page. Currently the paragraphs have been met and I have included the main thing that the article needed, citations. The notability level now is at least decent. I now feel confident that the aFd now has authority to be ended. I am also confident that it now follows wikipedia guidelines. Thank you Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 11:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

You have already voted. You only get one vote. Spiderone 20:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Making the article about river itself will not be very intriguing and will probably fail the test for Wikipedia’s notability. This is why I kept on making the article centred around the culvert itself. However if there is a way to change the title of the article from “River Monterroso culvert” to —-> “River Monterroso” I’m sure that the article will look good with its existing content and with more content about the river made more prominent. As a first time Wikipedia article creator I do not have much experience on telling what part of the article needs to be improved however this is why feel free to improve the layout of the article but feel to refrain on removing existing information without my consultation Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 20:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 

  I have decided to abandon this article and copy the exact content to a New article solely because

Of the articles name was not very good. The new article is River Monterroso Anyone can change this article to redirect to the “new” article if wanted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

As the article is now about The river monterroso including its culvert,

it most likely passes a notability test, as possessing as many rights as an article about a river has.

I have seen articles on other rivers that aren’t famous and they all have things in common

. A river infobox<——

. Well separated paragraphs <——

. And well cited <——

These are the things that I will get to work on Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://issuu.com/aytomarbella/docs/exposicion_agua/120
  2. ^ http://vistasdeayeryhoy.blogspot.com/2011/09/avenida-de-espanario-monterroso.html
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is a bit of a mess, but the article has been changed substantially during the AfD, and so discussion of how it stands presently would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've already cast my ballot and, having read the article again, I stand by it; hence just a comment. I repeat my earlier view that this article should be about the river, with the culvert section bolted on, rather than the confusion it currently is. I also think the references are still weak, once you remove the Google Maps and blogs etc. That said, it is much better now than it was nine days ago when I first came across it. And the passion behind the advocacy is jaw-dropping. :) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Move to Rio Monterroso. Geographic features are generally notable if verifiable and you can write something about them other than a statistic, and I think that's what we have here - the culvert itself isn't notable, but it's been discussed enough that the river that has been culverted, albeit short, passes I think it's WP:GEOFEAT. What a messy AfD! SportingFlyer T· C 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

searching the web for the “worlds largest culvert” results come up as all corrugated steels most likely because they weighs a lot less than concrete. All mostly 20 to 200 metres in length. in the river monterroso culvert, It has a span of a confirmed 1.16km long. 

Another result is of Alaskan highway culvert that was corrugated steel pipe that was installed in 1998. And collapsed just 2 years after its installation, the website is 
https://www.concretepipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ysk122.pdf and claims that it created “the mother of all potholes”. The sinkhole looks about 100 metres  smaller than the 700 square metre sinkhole of the monterroso. A peice of the pdf touts it to be “the largest construction project in the history of its kind”.

The fact that the river monterroso culvert predates the Alaskan culvert by 25 years, and that the length of the Alaskan culvert at 35 metres long compared to the river monterroso culvert at 1,160 metres long the monterroso culvert may have peaked as the largest culvert in the world for several years if it isn’t by the president day. That potential fact alone could be a reason for its notability. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify and move to Rio Monterroso - the topic as a river seems to meet notability guidelines at WP:GEOLANDS, though I'm still skeptical that the topic meets notability guidelines as a culvert. In either case, I agree with Robert McClenon that the article is still a mess. Much of it is unverifiable original research, which should be cleaned up before being published in mainspace. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Move to Rio Monterroso. I second (or third) SportingFlyer and Coolabahapple above. The AfD is a big mess, and the article also needs some attention, but the author(s) have really given it a good shot to make serious and requested improvements. I would hate to simply dump the honest effort made.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply


I think There should be a Spanish version of this article when i am certain that it qualifies for Wikipedia but that is in the future, and if Rio Monterroso is thinking of being used then first there should open a debate wether the Monterroso is an “Arroyo” or “Rio”.

“Arroyo” means stream when translated to English and “Rio” means river when translated into English. In the summer it is an arroyo and just trickles out. and in the flood months it is a raging river.


However I have seen where the riverbed is dry in the inlet of the culvert, and where 1.16km south of the same culvert, the water is flooding out on the beach On the outfall of the culvert. An example is on google earth/maps where the inlet [1] Is completely dry and the outfall directly south [2] Is completed wet and flowing with water due to the shear amount of pipes and inlets that flow in. including the Juan Benítez culvert that has a pipe within it that always discharges freshwater. The pipe in their ramps on and off and the flow on the beach is seen changing speed with the pipe in the Juan Benítez culvert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 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) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Adesua Dozie

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

Although as at the time this article is being nominated for deletion there are no sources present in the article, a before search did show this, which appears to be written by a guest editor, this which appears to be a promotional sponsored post & this which appears to be a mere announcement. In all, I do not see WP:GNG satisfied as subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

This article has been significantly improved with the addition of credible independent sources. this is in addition to the several in line link that has now been added to the article. The article therefore meets Wikipedia's policy of verifiability and Notability. I therefore vote for keep. Omorodion1 ( talk) 21:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment — The editor above @ Omorodion1, is the article creator.
I have analyzed most of the sources used in the article already in my opening AFD rationale, your two new inclusions appear to be this(which is an interview thus isn't independent of her) & this which is a list article with very short biographies affixed to each entry, this doesn’t adhere to WP:SIGCOV & of no value to WP:GNG which requires significant coverage. How else might I explain to you that this subject isn’t notable just yet? If you want me to create a table I honestly would. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Peggy Rae Sapienza

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

Questionable notability in spite of long list of references, many of which seem tangential or indirect, and most don't appear to establish notability. Large sections of unsourced text make it problematic to further verify notability. If subject is indeed notable and article kept, this thing needs serious cleanup and better sourcing. Mansheimer ( talk) 16:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am disputing the call for deletion of this article. You have noted that there are plenty of references, you feel that not enough are direct, and too many are tangential: I disagree. I see the Wiki terms of keeping or not keeping an article 'some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." This article interests some people, specifically those who are involved in Science Fiction and Science Fiction Conventions. I don't see the large blocks of unsourced text that you refer to - perhaps there are a few bits here and there, but to characterize them as large blocks is a bit extreme. If you want to mark for clean-up that might be more appropriate, but even then I think that is pushing it a bit. Riverpa ( talk) 03:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Peggy Rae was a very important figure in the field of sf fandom, especially in the USA. This particular article has some 20 references to her career in the field, covering all aspects of her life which in itself should qualify her for inclusion. References are only tangential if the reader either disagrees with them or doesn't understand their significance. The article currently only shows one "citation required" flag which indicates a small cleanup rather than a full deletion. Perry Middlemiss ( talk) 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this needs clean-up and improvements in tone, references, etc. But this nomination is an example of substituting AfD for improvement. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems adequate sourcing already in the article to meet the general notability guideline. Camille Bacon-Smith's work on fandom is considered reliable in the academic community; she interviews Rae in Science Fiction Culture and later refers to her as a "highly expert" con organizer. [39]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Georgia

History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Georgia (  | 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 seem to yet meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. No prejudice against recreating the article if their rivalry does gain a bit more attention later (incidentally, these two are due to meet for a fifth time later this month). Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keeping -

On a related note (this has nothing to do with my closure, however) - one of my first punk rock tapes was a Blatz tape. Missvain ( talk) 20:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Robert Eggplant

Robert Eggplant (  | 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 subject, no reliable secondary sources. Mansheimer ( talk) 15:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 20:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Gary Pig Gold

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

Questionable notability, only one citation provided, appears to be a vanity page. Mansheimer ( talk) 15:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

History of rugby union matches between Scotland and Georgia

History of rugby union matches between Scotland and Georgia (  | 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 seem to yet meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. No prejudice against recreating the article if their rivalry does gain a bit more attention later. Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 17:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

History of rugby union matches between England and Japan

History of rugby union matches between England and Japan (  | 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 seem to meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 19:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Sepy Dobronyi

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

Longstanding article with some notability which I would prefer have the community weigh in on rather than swing the axe (scythe?) myself. TomStar81 ( Talk) 12:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - No actual WP:DELREASON has been stated. Most of the sourcing in the article (which is plentiful) is offline. All I can do is assume good faith that the sourcing was actually as presented by the person who added it and as such would support notability. Even if not I think this is at the very least a WP:BASIC pass per these sources - 1 2 3. Dobronyi is notable as a well-known playboy with at least two major incidents of notability (the dispute over his making of a nude statue of a Hollywood star, the auctioning of Queen Elizabeth II's under wear) and probably many others. FOARP ( talk) 15:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • G11 is a speed deletion tag and clearly this is not an article that should be speedily deleted. Like G11 says, "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion". Clearly this is a notable subject at least on WP:BASIC grounds. To be honest I think a lot people are being way too trigger-happy with WP:PROD, and articles that are eminently saveable, or not even particularly problematic, are being deleted as a result. FOARP ( talk) 08:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Question. I don't understand the rationale here. Does "swing the axe" mean "stubbify" or "overhaul"? Like FOARP, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the many offline sources listed, so if there's no problem with notability or verifiability, why are we at AfD? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ AleatoryPonderings: Swinging the axe means deleting it outright. I can swing that axe on my own authority, but in this case I want the community to weigh in on the matter before I delete the article because I don't see a clear cut case here for G11. If the community feels it should be deleted, then the axe is swung and the article dies, otherwise it stays where it is and someone who gives a damn about it can fix it up. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This "artist" gets 0 hits on JSTOR, and a 5 on scholar, and looks like no critical piece on his "art", so one might argue he is not notable enough for his "art" (sculpture, jewelry, photo).
However, other people e.g. book illustrators tend to get this sort of silent treatment, and that should not automatically establish non-notability, IMO.
The subject is evidently a fixture in the cultural scene in Miami, with other former Cuba inhabitants like Ernest Hemingway in the mix. Consequently he has sculpted/photo'd some actors and sold a strand to Mrs. Hemingway, which is written up about in some mags and books, and this seems sufficiently WP:GNG. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 18:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per discussion. The page seems well sourced. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • per The Miami Herald: "Any recounting of his history must carry a disclaimer: The only person who could separate fact from fiction in his colorful life died of liver cancer just after midnight May 29 at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach". We have very good reasons to be skeptical about the veracity of this article. Vexations ( talk) 13:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Veracity or not of various incidents of his life is a page-quality issue, similar to that of any other notable fabulist or charlatan. Simply stating the points of his life over which there was some doubt (i.e., the queen has not acknowledged that the underwear sold were actually hers) is sufficient, but that claims he made about his life are verifiable as claims, we need not state whether his claims were true or not. Still a WP:V, WP:GNG pass. FOARP ( talk) 20:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I did a bunch of cleanup before I finally gave up and G11d the article. For reference, it previously looked like this, and included gems like and royal crown jeweler,[3] aristocrat, art collector, world traveler, movie maker, pilot, wine collector, sportsman, playboy, and bon vivant. I decided to attempt a (risky) speedy because I realised that while the promotional content may be removable, the fundamental issues this article has cannot be addressed without a full rewrite. It has been cultivated by a single SPA for years, and while concerns about serious reliability issues were raised in 2011, an IP (likely the principal author) removed the objections and carried on. encountered copyright violations, unreliable sources, and a bunch of highly questionable claims (see the page history to see my attempts at cleanup). The article makes a number of exceptional claims and backs them up with sources that are questionable at best, including various editions of playboy). It reads, in essence, like a movie plot, and I get the feeling that that is what it actually is. I recommend reading the pre-cleanup version in full; it makes so many incredible claims that I came to the conclusion that nothing in this article should be taken at face value, simply because it all seems massively over-exaggerated. I have no confidence in any information included in it. Hence delete for the sake of being a reliable encyclopaedia and per WP:TNT Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    To clarify: Pre-cleanup, the article claimed, among other things, that the subject was one of six pilots chosen to try out the world's first Rocket-powered aircraft., was shot down in his aircraft and captured by the Russians and being held in prison in occupied Hungary but managed to escape in one day and immediately returned to Budapest, spoke six languages, walked from Budapest to Sweden through occupied territory (despite the chronology implying that this was post-war), designed a brooch for Queen Elizabeth's wedding, then went to Caracas with only $150.00, his suitcase and the suit on his back, where his art studio became a mecca for various celebrities. Skipping half the page, we then find claims that he traveled to 89 countries, climbed mount Kilimanjaro and the Matterhorn, was injured by an arrow to his leg while being in New Guinea to to observe a primitive tribal war, only to recover within three days with the help of the natives, shot a lion that was charging at him, etc. etc. I have little faith in the credibility of the article. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Oh, I also forgot this subtle wink: Dobronyi's trademark while living in Cuba, was a pocket full of shark's teeth which he passed out to the girls of his choice.[21] Over 600 females are a member of the Shark tooth club.[12], as well as that he was the one person in Cuba who put shirts on artists' backs and bankbooks in their pocket for the first time in the island's history. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You're trying to argue WP:TNT here but clearly the article is saveable - just delete the WP:PROMO stuff. The subject is clearly notable based simply on the obituary references. If an editor is being permanently disruptive then WP:ANI them. His claims about himself being dubious is not an issue (we cover fiction on Wiki) so long as their dubiousness is also highlighted and they are described as claims, not stated as facts. Speedy is most definitely not supposed to be used for cases like this - it is not simply a nuke button that you can press to avoid the hard work of editing. FOARP ( talk) 08:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I agree with FOARP that Blablubbs should deal with editing issues by methods other than total annihilation (deletion).
You don't need to get so compulsive-obsessive about purging every claim either.
As an example, Yul Brynner article retains discussion of his (fictitious) Romani descent claim.
And non-outlandish claims like having "only $150.00" as an escapee, you can let slide.
Also a false perception of anachronism, bcz nothing strange about difficulty in getting visas to a (formerly) occupied state in the immediate post-war months. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 13:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Kiyoweap, I'll reply to the rest of the arguments brought forth by you and FOARP later, just noting that I don't appreciate the suggestion that someone who holds an opposing viewpoint must be mentally unwell, nor the insinuation that I am merely being lazy here. Also dropping Special:Diff/987360955 here to support my argument about the doubtful reliability of the article, even when it comes to claims that are apparently sourced. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, well, I admit I am not a psychiatrist, so maybe I should have avoided a clinical term, but the point is Wikipedia rules as per WP:PRIMARYCARE do not endorse an editor rejecting every self-made claim, and even allows those found in his own autobiography, provided it is non-controversial. Your criterion seems to be that you feel entitled to remove a non-controversial self-made claim even if it is from a secondary source, and I'm asserting that you are over-reaching.
The statement of having $150 on one's person as a refugee, might be controversial in your assessment, but thousands if not millions of refugees have a similar experience to tell with no way to substantiate if that was the actual sum on money they had on them. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 13:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I am not here to litigate specific claims made in the article. The problem is that the text makes no indication of whether these are claims or presented as fact by the sources; did he claim or was he one of the first pilots of rocket-powered aircraft? It is likely that some of the claims presented are true, it is likely that some aren't; but given the quality, appropriateness concerns (see Diff above) and inaccessibility of the sources (I doubt anyone will be able to find many 1962 issues of "Today. ME- and the Gold-Plated Girls", which is the source for that specific claim), we would essentially have to hat half the article with "the following may or may not be true". Alternatively, we could be left with a two-sentence stub. So yes, I think WP:TNT applies here.
And no, you shouldn't have used the clinical term regardless of your professional background. And if you feel that my edits are a sign of "entitlement", you can follow BRD and revert them all. Twinkle has a great function for that. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seems notable, although COI applies, as it was written by Sepy1031, and his Wiki activity revolved around Sepy's page only. (Tho' it couldn't be him, since the article was written in 2011, and Sepy died in 2010. Most likely one of his fans or someone among those lines must've written it.) GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 15:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm frankly surprised that this should require any further discussion, after the opinions above were virtually unanimously for keeping the article, except for the dissenting opinion of the initiator of the deletion request. In any case, the presented reasoning for deletion is without merit. More so, I believe that following up with deleting this article, essentially based on the gut feeling of one user, would set a dangerous precedent, which would potentially give way to deletion discussions for virtually any article on topics pertaining to history, which by definition will contain facts that may not be verifiable any longer, since the witnesses or records are most often not readily accessible anymore. What is important to be understood is that this is part of the fundamental nature of the matter of authoring of texts on the subject of history and biographical material on subjects which are no longer around. In general, the discussion has yet to bring forward a valid reason for deletion. One, the notability of the subject of the article has not been questioned. And two, the article generally does well (where it can) by being adequately sourced and this has not been questioned either. Much rather, part of the discussion here seems to be related to the nature of the claims presented in the sources themselves (of which many are tabloid newspapers). While many of the claims on the subject's life presented in these sources may be impossible for us to verify, this circumstance is not of relevance to this article itself. This is because the fact that these stories on the subject‘s life were widely publicized, found widespread attention and became part of public canon (even if mostly geograhically restrained to parts of Florida), makes them historically relevant and thus worth preserving. Even if the article is deleted, the fact that the stories were widely published (and read) will never be reversed. The stories themselves that this article references are by now of public relevance, because they have shaped an enduring image of a notable subject, whether verifiable or not. The article in itself is valuable in collecting the publicly available information of the subject, which would otherwise remain scattered across archives. TwentyEightyFour ( talk) 18:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) — TwentyEightyFour ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep but stubify. This could be cut down to a couple paragraphs. It is chock full of trivia at the moment. Possibly ( talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I second the lengthy and thoughtful comment by TwentyEightyFour. The article is well-referenced and supported, and I am puzzled by the desire to delete good encyclopedic information.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 20:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Atlet AB

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

Entirely unsourced company page, fails to prove it's notability. Can't find anything significant about them after a quick search, so likely fails WP:NCORP. — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Atlet has a long history as a major company within its niche. There was a source in the article – the book Atlet: 1958–2006 by Henrik Moberger, who has written several other books about Swedish companies, but it was self-published. However, plenty of non-trivial coverage about the company in Swedish newspapers (not available through a normal search, but through paywalled newspaper archives). I've added three. / Julle ( talk) 00:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 04:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Since there have been two relists and no reliable sources, I think we're done here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Babilon be salon

Babilon be salon (  | 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 notability guidelines. Sources in the article are Facebook posts. BEFORE showed nothing (under Babilon be salon, ባቢሎን በሳሎን, or Babylon in the living room) that meets WP:RS WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.   //  Timothy ::  talk  02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only reference is the Ethiopian National Theatre's Facebook page, which contains only a one-line notice for the play. None of the content is coherent. Nothing would be lost by deleting this. I doubt there is anything notable here, and even if there is, it should be started again from scratch. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This only appears to give it a passing mention and the other sources all look completely unreliable, especially the mp3 download one Spiderone 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply

Dear User:Spiderone, for you do not understand Amharic, it doesn't mean the sources are 'unreliable'. But to make clear for others:

  1. The first, which has a full information about the genre, running time, writer, actors and so on, and second, which clearly inform when the Babilon be salon return to the stage, citations are directly from Ethiopian National Theater's official Facebook page.
  2. The third citation is about the participated actors. For instance, actors mentioned here: አለማየሁ ታደሰ or Alemayehu Tadesse, ፍቃዱ ከበደ or Fikadu Kebede and others.
  3. The fourth describe about the Babilon be salon's popularity all over the country.
  4. The rest one, the fifth and sixth, are the audio and video direct reference.

After all these, if you believe it should not be on Wikipedia, do your pleasure. - Yitbe, 06:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

So that means only the fourth source gives any indication of notability. Anyone can make a Facebook page about anything. The third source focuses on the actors rather than the drama itself. The fifth link is an mp3 download and the sixth is basically a YouTube video. Spiderone 16:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv 🍁 03:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Questionable notability, was nominated once before and consensus was to delete. A lot of references are shown, but these are for artists rather than the gallery itself (which is itself misleading and possibly a bad faith effort to make it appear that there is plenty of coverage of the actual gallery when there really isn't). There doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable secondary sources and possibly not enough to justify an article. At best, this is going to be stuck as a stub. Mansheimer ( talk) 11:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Previous discussions: 2013-05 ✗ delete
Logs: 2013-05 ✗ deleted, 2013-05 ✗ G11, 2013-05 ✗ deleted, 2013-05 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article has been refbombed, the list of references is currently larger than the text of the article, most of which are not relevant to the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, either relying on coverage of exhibitions or artists (failing CORPDEPTH), mentions in passing or Primary and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/ WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I went through all the sources to see if there was any material about the gallery beyond a mere mention. This is what I found: [46] SEAN HORTON (presents)
    [47] nothing
    [48] we hope to get there sometime this week to open Community Action Center @ Horton Gallery.
    https://observer.com/2011/06/l-e-s-gallery-expands-to-berlin/ - 100% about subject
    [49] dead link
    [50] “Sun Screen,” an exhibition of Tichý’s work, is on view until September 10, 2011 at the Horton Gallery in New York City.
    [51] nothing
    [52] dead link
    [53] nothing
    [54] Horton Gallery, 504 West 22nd Street
    [55] nothing
    [56] nothing
    [57] nothing
    [58] In his New York solo debut at the recently opened gallery Horton & Liu, Michael Berryhill does both.
    [59] dead link
    [60]dead link
    [61] Kirk Hayes’s paintings at Horton Gallery occupy a realm somewhere between the trompe-l’œil earnestness of William Harnett’s hyperrealistically rendered sheets of paper in The Artist’s Letter Rack (1879) and the tragicomic sumptuousness of the bulbous-headed smoker lying about in Philip Guston’s 1973 Stationary Figure (both pictures are on view at the Met).
    [62] nothing
    [63] Touch’d Lustre, Grill’s first show at Zieher Smith & Horton, presents eight oil-on-linen paintings, all completed in 2015.
    [64] Zieher Smith & Horton in Chelsea is now showing nine of her contemplative abstract paintings, medium-scale works with floaty, interwoven patterns, shapes and marks in palettes that range from misty pale greens and lemon yellows to pulsing reds.
    [65] The title of Zieher Smith & Horton’s two-man exhibition of David Byrd and Peter Gallo, “The Patients and the Doctors,” is taken from a fiery 1947 work by the poet-mental patient Antonin Artaud.
    [66] nothing
    [67] Zieher Smith & Horton 516 West 20th Street
    [68] Horton & Company 504 West 22nd Street, Chelsea
    [69] The galleries Zieher Smith and Sean Horton joined forces last year, doubling their abilities to find young or underexposed talent.
    [70] Along with Canada, Sean Horton has earned his place as a poster boy for the Lower East Side gallery movement. After some time spent in Boston, where we first met, Sean went to New York and worked with Nick Lawrence before opening Horton Gallery. Sean loves painting, and he has an extraordinary eye for picking emerging talent. His star, Keltie Ferris, may have left recently, but his program continues to be one of the freshest in New York.
    [71] C. Sean Horton, a founder of Chelsea’s Freight and Volume gallery, opened his own shop last fall.
    [72] The gallery, which, according to its owner, Clayton Sean Horton, focuses on “periphery” and “overlooked” artists, has been open since October 2006. Its current exhibition focuses on Royal Robertson, a Louisiana folk artist who died in 1997, and Hilary Baldwin, a New York sculptor. Never heard of them? Exactly.
    There is just the article in the Observer that is actually about the subject, but that's one source. Vexations ( talk) 21:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yup, except the Observer reference is an announcement by the owner, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing ++ 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is too little to say about this person to keep or even merge. Sandstein 12:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Faustus Cornelius Sulla (grandson of Sulla)

Faustus Cornelius Sulla (grandson of Sulla) (  | 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 presents two sources on this subject: the first contains a passage which says his father (also called Faustus) had children, and the second merely says that his father had descendants. No evidence is anywhere presented for the existence of a son called "Faustus", and, as it stands, there's no good reason to believe this specific individual even exists. I was unable to find anything in reliable sources that would prove otherwise. If he does somehow exist, then he fails Wikipedia's notability standards, since nothing of his life is known, by the article's own admission. Avis11 ( talk) 15:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I'll add that this article was created by an IP ( back in 2005) with what seems to be a mass of unsourced fabrications. Discussions on the talk page throughout the years have since led to the elimination of all the original content and caused the article to shrink to its current size. Avis11 ( talk) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete On the one hand a Cornelius Sulla, grandson of Sulla, did exist. Ronald Syme (The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford: 1986), pp. 261 & 265) mentions him twice. However, he is nothing more than a genealogical link between one notable person (Sulla) & a pair of other notable men (the Cornelii Sullae who were consuls in 31 & 33); more could be said about his son, Sulla Felix, who is at best borderline notable. (An argument could be made for Sulla Felix, but I wouldn't be convinced by it.) Most importantly, notability is not inherited: his strongest claim for notability otherwise is that he might have been a member of the Roman Senate. (Augustus twice purged the Roman Senate to reduce its numbers from over 1,000 to 600 members; this Cornelius Sulla might have been expelled at one of those times. We have no way to know.)
    As a last note, I considered the option of "Merge", but there is nothing here to merge. And I tried to find a way to do just that: the easiest explanation for how the two consular Cornelii Sullae are related to their famous ancestor is to say "direct descendant" thru their father; it would be awkward & pointless to mention this person in their articles. -- llywrch ( talk) 01:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Essential just a name in an ancient genealogy. We know too little about this fellow to write an actual article about him. GNG is not met. Hog Farm Bacon 02:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. That he existed seems certain enough, but absent substantial scholarly writing about him (even an investigation of who he was), there's no need for him to have an article of his own; he can rest comfortably at "Cornelia gens", surrounded by his family, and mentioned as appropriate in the articles about his notable immediate relatives. I don't know what the basis for his praenomen is, other than a generally unwarranted assumption that he would have had the same praenomen as his father. While this would have been the case more often than not, the meagre epigraphic evidence doesn't support it as far as I know. If the filiations of his presumed descendants are correct, his name was probably Publius. Which is not to say that there couldn't have been a son Faustus—but lacking more evidence, clearly-stated scholarly opinion, or even proof of how the supposed grandsons were related to him, I'd call it a stretch. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • As a post script, I'd like to point out that the Italian Classicist Borghesi argued that the grandfather of the Cornelius Sulla, consul 33, was Lucius Cornelius Sulla; first Groag then Syme argued (more persuasively) for the existence of Cornelius Sulla. So one could argue the existence of Cornelius Sulla is not rock solid. (IMHO, I beleive Groag & Syme are closer to the truth.) -- llywrch ( talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to his father or grandfather. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No valid reason for deletion presented. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 17:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Presidency of Ilham Aliyev

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

I suggest this article is deleted because all the content is also covered in Ilham Aliyev, which covers his presidency in greater detail and is updated regularly . Kevo327 ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kevo327 ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Kevo327 ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject is notable per the WP:NPROF guideline. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 17:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Robert Slavin

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

Not a single source to be found to establish notability; article has notable NPOV issues. Megaman en m ( talk) 14:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megaman en m ( talk) 14:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Rhys Lewis (musician)

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

The musician seem to be WP:TOOSOON and not meeting WP:MUSICBIO strictly. Considering it as a borderline case. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

"Withdrawn by nominator" per the comments and votes below. --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 20:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Katy Woolley

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

Fails GNG, WP:MUSICBIO Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep has reliable sources coverage such as the BBC, Financial Times and others and is a professor at The Royal Academy of Music, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, though it's a little hard to say. However, I think there is a bit of an issue with WP:MUSICBIO with notability for musicians from multiple highly prestigious orchestras. I would otherwise suggest a merge, but to which orchestra's page? Or to the university's? This is certainly a stub, and will likely stay that way for a while, but obviously the article was created for a reason. Hsplus ( talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In the world of classical music, in my mind she is notable by both chair occupied and orchestra she is associated with. The article is well supported by reliable sources. A good encyclopedia article on a rising star in her field.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 14:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Enough on-line presence in reputable places to support keeping the article on wikipedia. Kolma8 ( talk) 18:26, 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. – bradv 🍁 03:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Nakala

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

Fails GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Death. Consensus to cover the death at the main article, rather than a standalone page. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 17:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Death of Promised Messiah

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

This is basically a pointless fork of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is certainly notable, but his death doesn't require a separate article. PepperBeast (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Feel free to discuss merging via the article. Missvain ( talk) 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Arnaud Vaissié

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

Fails WP:GNG if there are multiple independent reliable sources they haven't been cited here and the Telegraph interview is WP:PRIMARY as far as I can see he's just another run of the mill business person. Ch1p the chop ( talk) 12:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 20:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

M3NSA

M3NSA (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. They do not satisfy either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. The three sources used in the article are all unreliable in this context as both this & this appear to be interviews hence aren’t independent of him thus doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG & this is user generated thus very unreliable. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — the Fader.com source is an interview hence isn’t independent of the subject thus is of no value to WP:GNG whilst this Modern Ghana source merely name drops him amongst three other artists who were nominated for the award of which he didn’t win, WP:MUSICBIO requires the individual to have been nominated for a prominent award and MOBO awards isn’t that award & Apparently he was dropped from the nominees. Lastly please do not use pulse.com.gh as a reliable source to substantiate anything as they are not a reliable source, an example of their ineptitude is nonsense like this they publish. I have removed all pulse.com.gh sources used in the article as they clearly aren’t a serious or reliable source with reputation for fact checking. Please do not re-add them. Celestina007 ( talk) 04:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

*Keep more references have been added from sources independent of the subject. Kinvidia ( talk) 00:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC) struck second vote, Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep does have a staff written AllMusic bio already in the article and coverage in reliable sources such as Fader. I don't understand what was going on with the MOBOs but they are a big deal in the UK, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Good improvements made after listing for AfD, especially the BBC News reference. Also, as I have written many times before, I really don't agree with the nominator making numerous changes after the article has been listed - I would much prefer to let the community do its review on the article as it was at time on nomination.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:30, 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. – bradv 🍁 03:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Jérémy Lenaerts

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

I prodded this with the same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hayden (rugby union) and dozens of other recent AFDs, which was: Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. It was deprodded due to him playing in the French Second Division, but it turns out this was only 1 game. The project guideline notwithstanding, it has become a crystal-clear consensus in sports AFD discussions that playing 1 game is nowhere near enough for Wikipedia inclusion. For association football, I can point to at least 50 AFDs with this outcome. There is no reason why rugby should be different. Geschichte ( talk) 10:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was the user who deprodded for the above reasons. The player certainly doesn't reach WP:GNG as there is only really coverage of him signing for certain sides, certainly not enough for significant coverage. He though of course has played 1 game which qualifies him as 'notable' under WP:NRU. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has as has been said set different guidelines on appearances for notability ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union seems to suggest only 1 game is needed for notability). I'd like to see other users views before making a final decision on keep or delete. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Having seen the comments of other editors I'm inclined to agree with them. Failing WP:GNG should take precedence in this case over WP:NRU especially as it's unlikely that the player will make any appearances that would qualify him further under WP:NRU in the near future. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 11:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If a person does not pass GNG we should not have an article on them. If the rugby criteria lead to any other conclusion, they should be scrapped. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with JPL and Geschichte. Failing GNG should take precedence over scraping through NRU by skin of teeth Spiderone 17:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - at the very top of the page that WP:NRU is on, it does say This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. and then later it says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I think this gives us licence to use common sense in the rare case when someone technically passes NRU but completely fails GNG. Spiderone 19:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Amritsar

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

I am extremely concerned about the sourcing (or lack thereof) for the information in this article. It seems to be WP:OR. From the four references provided, all of which are primary sources anyway, two of them don't work and the other two seem to link to the website for a skyscraper in Bhopal, not Amritsar. Even if we could reliably source some of these heights, we would still run into WP:SYNTH issues since there aren't any websites covering this topic as a whole. Even the exhaustive skyscraper database websites like Emporis and Skyscraperpage seem to contradict the info in this article. The article itself fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

  • Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
  • Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage (and in this case the article doesn't even have that).
  • I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Amritsar' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
  • No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
  • The whole article is currently a violation of WP:OR.
  • The city is not the largest in Punjab nor is it the capital.
  • I really do not believe that a building being taller than 30m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Kolkata so why are we doing it here?

Previous consensus on similar articles: Gwalior, Bhopal and Ranchi. Spiderone 10:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I see a stronger consensus to delete than to merge, but if anyone actively wants to take up the task of merging it, I'll restore for them to do so. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Grounding (earthing) culture

Grounding (earthing) culture (  | 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 (in quality, more so than quantity) article, fails WP:GNG. Possibly also contains WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOXing. Earlier A10 & G11 speedy was rejected, but I feel I would be in dereliction of duty if I didn't at least put forward this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 10:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:IMPERFECT, quality issues are not a reason to delete. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". The sources such as this review demonstrate that the topic is notable and so there's plenty of scope for further work. Note that we also have earthing therapy which currently redirects to nature therapy which doesn't say much about it and so this would be a better target. There's also barefoot which also doesn't say much about this. Me, I'm generating lots of static in the current weather and that's certainly not good for electronic devices. Maybe I should give this a try... Andrew🐉( talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Just to clarify, it's not 'quality issues' of the article itself why I nominated this; my point was that although there seem to be plenty of references, their quality is suspect. Having said which, if this nomination ends up providing relief from your static problems, then at least something good will have come of it. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is a (poorly written) essay that is already covered in our pseudoscience article here which was merged last year. Praxidicae ( talk) 13:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Nature therapy which addresses grounding in its lead but fails to mention it in the body of the article, so this would fill that gap. Schazjmd  (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - adequately covered in Nature therapy, there's an absolute lack of any decent sources on this subject and it'd be pretty hard to actually write much about. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 18:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Already covered at Nature therapy. The fact that there is not much on it in that article is simply due to the fact that there are so few legitimate sources on this WP:FRINGE pseudoscience. There is nothing of worth here that would be appropriate to merge, and the article title would not make for a useful Redirect term. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • (I was the admin who declined the speedy on this, purely on procedural grounds.) Somewhat surprised to find myself leaning keep or merge. There do appear to be some sources on this topic; Andrew Davidson came up with one review above, and there's also another mainstream review. Fwiw, there's also a review in an Elsevier alternative medicine journal Explore that has been criticised for publishing BS, but does claim to do peer review, as well as a research paper in an open-access sports science journal which cites lots of mainstream sources; the PubMed sidebar also links a number of complementary medicine journals that might or might not meet MedRS standards but have made it into PubMed. There are a few other sources in the merged earthing therapy article's history that Jytdog removed as being primary, but to my mind contribute to the topic's notability. I think a lot of the feeling about this falls under the "I don't like it" banner. That said, the current article is far from neutral and contains apparent original research; merging to nature therapy is a possibility. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge Fringe material is/can be further covered at nature therapy. All the books and journals cited are authored by the same few people including Chevalier, Sinitra, and Ober, the former having authored a review of several of his own articles. This does not demonstrate an substantially independent or broadly investigated area of pseudoscience. Reywas92 Talk 02:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Nature therapy per Schazjmd: which addresses grounding in its lead but fails to mention it in the body of the article, so this would fill that gap.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- This concept is clearly a load of woo-woo, which is obvious from the sources presented so far. Although Wikipedia does, and should, have articles about pseudoscience, this is only possible when reliable sources discuss it as pseudoscience. What we have here is a wacky woo subject covered in promotional fringe publications. The reliable independent sources that treat this subject as pseudoscience don't seem to exist. It would be a disservice to our readers to signal-boost this kookery. Reyk YO! 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Reyk ... they said it perfectly. Having articles about total nonsense fringe theories is fine, if they have some notability. I've done a lot of reading on pseudoscience and this one is new to me. If anything, perhaps it should be merged into Electromagnetic hypersensitivity though the sources used here are pretty poor and I still think Delete is best. Also, the writer(s) of this article appear to be drawing conclusions or WP:SYNTHing. MrAureliusR Talk! 21:39, 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 redirect to Central Broward Park. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international cricket centuries at Central Broward Park

List of international cricket centuries at Central Broward Park (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
Note: Part of previous mass-AFD closed as "keep (snow close)" with a suggestion that a follow-up RFC was forthcoming: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate of information already presented in the parent Central Broward Park article. That article is not so long as to require a split, and this is an excessively short unnecessary listicle. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Agree, this is a content fork with a cut+paste list from the original article. I forget what the standalone criteria is (20 or 25 centuries), but at the current rate, it'll probably be 20 or 25 years before that is reached. If there was a lot more centuries AND a realistic chance that more would happen in the near future, then this would be a keep. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 12 Fundamentally we have a policy that covers this as an extension of BLP1E and that we cover any notable material under the election. That editors are reporting that he has dropped out of the news after the election supports the validity of that argument as an accurate description of wider community norms. In the absence of clear consensus to set the policy aside, the policy based votes are the ones that need to be given full weight. Spartaz Humbug! 16:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Shahid Buttar

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

Shahid Buttar has received an consistently abnormally high amount of media coverage compared to the routine news cycle, about his campaign for CA-12. Sources have consistently highlighted the fact that Buttar is the first Democrat to run against Pelosi in her 30-year career, challenging her from the left, not the right.

The news coverage about Buttar's campaign is fairly consistent in emphasising this. Additional, more recent sources, from after the previous AfD in April 2020, have reported on Buttar's campaign for this fact. They have also reported on some controversial allegations made against his campaign, also after the previous AfD.

The Theresa Greenfield case interpreted our notability guidelines so that an individual outsider electoral candidate can be notable as long as their candidacy meets the GNG, even if that's the only notable thing they have. I have opened this discussion to determine whether Buttar is notable as well, for the same reasons.

Is Shahid Buttar notable, based on more recent media coverage as well as how our notability guidelines have been interpreted to account for not-yet elected candidates running "interesting" (for lack of a better word) political campaigns?

Are there any stipulations that restrict the scope of the Greenfield decision? (e.g. federal office vs. state level or local office)

→ Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 12:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, repeating the statements I made in the last AfD, Buttar has clearly received an exceptional level of coverage for multiple different reasons, receiving national coverage over a period of many months, which your average congressional candidate just does not have, meaning that he clearly passes WP:MILL. Examples of this coverage includes [75], [76], [77], [78], etc. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 12:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not every candidate that runs in an election becomes automatically notable for receiving routine election coverage. Delete again per WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 18:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - From previous discussions I've had about this guy, it's clear to me that his "candidacy meets the GNG". I'm personally a deletionist, so I understand the desire not to make pages for anyone who's ever run for political office. That said, there are going to be examples where a non-notable person runs a clearly notable campaign. What do we do in that case? Seems clunky to make a "Candidacy of X" page. Might as well just make a page for the person. NickCT ( talk) 21:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just wanted to say that Buttar has lost again. It was not close. ( NYT). KidAd talk 05:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge He's not notable apart from the campaign, and he's only notable because he challenged a prominent lawmaker. The article is small enough I don't see any reason why we can't merge and redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California, since we don't normally keep articles for losing candidates per WP:BLP1E/ WP:NOTNEWS/the time-honoured idea many losing candidates slink back to private life pretty quickly. The article isn't that long, and we can properly cover him in the context of the election on that page without losing any important information, but I don't think he's notable enough for a standalone article by a wide margin. SportingFlyer T· C 13:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Also, a couple of the keep !votes above notes (explicitly or implicitly) that the "candidacy meets the GNG" - if that's considered a notable campaign, and it probably would be, an alternative option would be to create a new page on the race between him and Pelosi, and redirect it there until he does something else notable. My specific issue here is that he is not a notable individual at this time but I have no qualms with covering the notable event he was associated with. SportingFlyer T· C 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer: - re "create a new page on the race" - I think that's fair. But what do we call that page? NickCT ( talk) 14:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Something akin to "2020 California 12th district election." SportingFlyer T· C 14:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, I'd support rename to 2020 California 12th district election. That said, this still strikes me as a slightly clunky solution, b/c we'll end up with a page that is nominally about the district election, but is actually about Buttar. NickCT ( talk) 05:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Ideally, it'd be merged with the information at the page I proposed for the merge and then forked instead of renamed, but there are attribution issues with moving/renaming/et cetera so there be a "more correct" procedure. SportingFlyer T· C 11:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This is breaking delete, I'm absolutely fine with delete, I thought this would be more controversial given the pre-election hubbub. SportingFlyer T· C 17:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Seriously modify if Keep I'm an inclusionist, and lean toward keeping pages like this. However, the page is heavily biased toward Buttar, and was very likely set up by one of his supporters. For example, the sexual harassment claims against him represented a substantial impediment to his campaign, yet are addressed as though they were a random uncorroborated blip; similar allegations of misogyny are not given attention. I lean toward including major candidates, and Buttar has won twice, but the article needs to have its bias removed. PickleG13 ( talk) 09:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I believe I've satisfied the criteria for Buttar's notability separate and apart from his runs for office (even though the section I added on "media," with extensive links to his media interviews and op-eds, was deleted). I'm happy to add a section for the boards of directors of nonprofits he's served on. I've also tried to remove the bias, though I'd welcome additional thoughts on the harassment claims. (With respect to the latter, this seems like an important citation: https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1295856245115682816.) Thank you. User:sdi-jr ( User talk:sdi-jr) 08:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If you're suggesting that I was paid to restore Buttar's article, I'm afraid to say that I have never seen a cent for any the hours I've toiled for this website, editing or programming, since I made this account in 2009. This is not by choice, believe me; I offered to the WMF my two hands and the fire of passion multiple times over the years, but they always turned me away! Working for no pay, unfortunately, does not put food on the table, so to me, Wikipedia remains the hobby it always had been. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That was not my intent. To be honest, I did not see who had suggested restoring the article and was not directing that at a specific individual. I simply raised it as a possibility because someone had previously noted that the article appeared to be biased in his favor and was likely written by a supporter and his filings show that his campaign paid someone for that purpose. On this latter point I want to be totally clear: I am not speculating as to whether his campaign paid someone to help establish a Wikipedia article for him, I am stating as a matter of fact that one of his campaign's recent FEC filings lists a disbursement with "Wikipedia article" explicitly stated as the purpose for said disbursement and the group that received this payment offers services related to developing and editing a Wikipedia article for their clients (see linked pages in my prior comment). Based on my (relatively limited) understanding of editing etiquette with respect to conflicts of interests, etc. I thought I should mention it given prior comments about the lean of his article's content just so that others are aware and can take it into consideration. I apologize if it seemed as though I was casting aspersions on you or any other individual user because, again, that was not at all my intent. → Kx253 ( talk) 09:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I want to bring attention to the argument I made on the talk page that considers Shahid Buttar's campaign in the same light as Theresa Greenfield. The details are a bit of a mouthful so I'll collapse them. But in summary, here are my findings:
  1. Buttar's performance in the 2018 election is entirely irrelevant to the election in 2020.
  2. Buttar's coverage is not routine election coverage. The point isn't that Buttar won the primary, it's that he did so by challenging Pelosi from the left, not the right.
  3. Buttar passes the ten-year test regardless of the result of the 2020 election as a figure as part of a social movement.
My explanation copied from the talk page
I found minimal discussion in the AN thread that discussed treating Senate candidates differently from the House, non-federal office, etc. Discussion about the Senate specifically seemed to be because the particular case pertained to a Senate race, not due to any particular attribute of the Senate itself. I believe we should seek further discussion to clarify this point. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your response!
  • Buttar's performance in the 2018 election is entirely irrelevant to the election in 2020.
Buttar placed 2nd in 2020 in the primary. As a result, under California law, the only people on the ballot are Pelosi and Buttar. There is no one else. It is a two-person race. Buttar is as legitimate as any other member of the opposition.
  • WP:NPOL explicitly defers to the GNG in the case of not-yet elected candidates. The Shahid Buttar of right now has received an exceptional amount of media coverage compared to the routine news cycle, which satisfies the GNG.
The reason for this—which also forms a pretty good argument for the 10 year test, IMO—is in the headline of the Intercept article:
In short, they believe that it's relevant that Buttar won the primary, and that he did so by challenging Pelosi from the left, not the right. The Intercept is hardly alone in this sentiment. A cursory Google search yields numerous other reliable sources about him.
This was not at all a comprehensive search, due to time constraints from other real-life obligations; I'm sure that there are many more sources. These sources have all been published months apart, looking at Buttar and his campaign from many other angles as well. Most of them date to after April 2020, the date of the previous AfD. The reasonable notability concerns from earlier this year are clearly obsolete.
This is one of the most important figures in US politics, who has been considered untouchable for 30 years, receiving a credible challenge. California law is designed so that this challenge does not have to be based on usual partisan lines; it is the voters of San Francisco who made Buttar more relevant than the Republican Party in 2020. It is a challenge where Buttar is the only contender left, and the one chosen by the voters to do it.
  • Buttar passes the ten-year test regardless of the result of the 2020 election as a figure as part of a social movement.
Either Buttar is notable because he won a federal office (and served as an example of the Democratic party's leftward shift into the "AOC era"), or Buttar is notable because he lost (and serves as a prominent case study demonstrating the limits of that shift, even in San Francisco, the mecca of liberal hippies). The fact that his candidacy has reached this point—a general election challenge—is notable, and the sources constantly doting over that fact agree.
The Theresa Greenfield case interpreted our notability guidelines so that an individual outsider electoral candidate can be notable as long as their candidacy meets the GNG, even if that's the only notable they have. The past few months show that Buttar has done the same.
I do not believe it is appropriate to immediately turn this back into a redirect. The original reason for the deletion no longer applies, given the new sources and the Theresa Greenfield decision. A discussion board is a better venue for this kind of conversation, and would attract more people for a more robust and organised discussion. I imagine that this will have to be had eventually, at some point, so we might as well get it over with right now. We can solve two problems in one conversation. As a result - again, considering current events - I'll restore the article with the new sources I found, and list it at AfD to solicit additional opinions.
→ Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
In addition, here's a question to those who point to Buttar's loss as a justification to delete: should Theresa Greenfield's article be deleted for the same reason? If so, then there's a free opportunity to put the article up for AfD. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Theresa Greenfield ran for the Senate, not the House of Representatives, so she's not a valid WP:WAX analogue to Buttar. I'm not necessarily saying she should have an article either, but the fact that an unsuccessful Senate candidate might have an article is entirely irrelevant to whether an unsuccessful House candidate should have an article or not. (The argument has even been attempted in the past that we should keep articles about unsuccessful city council candidates because we didn't delete the article about Hillary Clinton when she lost the presidency — which is obviously an absurd non-starter of an argument, not least because Hillary Clinton has held other notable offices independently of her failure to win one specific election, but it does demonstrate precisely why WAX arguments don't work.) Each article has to be evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof, and the existence of one does not automatically necessitate the existence of the other. Bearcat ( talk) 15:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per the many arguments already cited. Candidates running for office who are unsuccessful are not notable, per Wikipedia guidelines. He lost, badly 80%-20%. The argument 'this challenge is unlike any other and is notable' is falt out false.Pelosi did better in the general than in the primary. It wasn't even the closest of Pelosi's races. For context, Pelosi beat in 2016 Preston Picus 80%-19% and in 2018 Lisa Remmer 86%-14%, so Buttar's result isn't particularly noticeable or good. There's no reason he is notable, especially after he lost. Additionally, the fact he paid for a Wikipedia page as alleged above is quite troubling. This is the fourth time we're having this discussion, please stop and accept the deletion. Eccekevin ( talk) 06:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am opposed to the creation of 2020 California 12th district election. After the election is concluded and the results came in, we can see it was much ado about nothing. The 'almost upset' didn't even come close to happening and Nancy Pelosi won 80%-20%. Additionally, Buttar wasn't even the best performer against Pelosi, she's had a closer margin in past elecitons. Finally, Buttar dropped completely out of the news cycle. Creating a page (or keeping this one) would be WP:RECENTISM. The challenge was not credible, and hence the candidate was not notable. Eccekevin ( talk) 06:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per SportingFlyer above. Losing candidates do not meet WP:NPOL, sustained coverage ended post-election, unlikely to pass WP:10YT. -- CharlesShirley ( talk) 16:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG given his coverage. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 19:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I wound not say so. Coverage is usually high for challenger candidates, so we should not fall for WP:RECENTISM. Additionally, coverage has been non-existant since his defeat. Eccekevin ( talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It does not pass WP:GNG. There has been some coverage only during the election (which happens to most candidates), but that coverage has immediately stopped. This would be in violation of WP:RECENTISM. Eccekevin ( talk) 23:12, 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 keep. After a relist, no-one but the nominator is arguing for this to be deleted (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Valmiki Ashram

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

Article created by a disruptive sockpuppet and submitted to AfC multiple times by his sock IPs. There are many temples known as "Valmiki Ashram" and this one is not covered in any of the sources as, most of it hinges on recent news sources (which were reported on after recent controversial claims by the Nepalese Prime Minister) and should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
All of the sources you listed are passing single word mentions and none of them discuss this in length at all. So the article still fails WP:INDEPTH. (PS: Two of the sources you listed spotlightnepal.com, ekantipur.com were published after the controversial claims). There are multiple such "Valmiki Ashrams" most of them are not covered in any depth or significance, hence non-notable. This article was specifically created by the disruptive sock to POVPUSH this as the "real" Valmiki Ashram all over wiki after those claims. I don't see it failing WP:NOTNEWS since most of the coverage of this is after the recent events, and even if passing mentions can be found in WP:RS it is still not in-depth or notable. Gotitbro ( talk) 19:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
There are plenty of sources that go in-depth (but they are in Nepali): [79] [80] [81] ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 13:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
All of these are very recent perennial news sources as well. Gotitbro ( talk) 00:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This is like saying delete the 2020 United States presidential election article because it happened recently. These Nepali sources go in-depth. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 13:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ DayakSibiriak: Please reconsider your vote/comment. This temple is not related to the Balmikism denomination/sect (which is mostly based in Punjab), its an unrelated structure in Nepal. Though I concur that the name is confusing since we already have a Ashram (Balmiki) article (which is about all general worship places of the denomination) and as I have said previously there multiple places known as "Valmiki Ashrams" and this one is not notable enough. Gotitbro ( talk) 02:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Agree. DayakSibiriak ( talk) 03:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ DayakSibiriak: Then please strike/change your vote because it is based on incorrect reasoning. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Recently-created account with no significant edits outside deletion discussions. Gotitbro ( talk) 00:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Sorry, none of them are in-depth beyond single line mentions the last source doesn't even mention it (the first one is not RS either). Gotitbro ( talk) 00:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I think the existing sources in the article and those mentioned above are sufficient for notability and in-depth. For example,this source [86] from 'Times of India' published in 2012.
Moreover the controversial claim by Nepalese PM is about the birthplace of Rama; Thori in Nepal or Ayodhya in India. So I think this has nothing to do with Valmiki Ashram. Mnop1234 ( talk) 05:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Single phrase/line mentions are clearly not in-depth (or even WP:GNG for that matter). The claims are relevant since that is what lead to the creation of this article by the sockpuppet in the first place and a lot of news articles being cited here and in the article are based/follow on them (as described in those news articles itself). Gotitbro ( talk) 10:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Cazador, Arizona

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

There is a "stage"/"phase" of Cochise culture named after this spot, but while the reference which says so calls this a "community", it's actually another isolated passing siding in the desert. As such it does not inherit notability from the anthropological reference. Mangoe ( talk) 03:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Searching newspapers.com is a bit tricky because Cazador means Hunter in Spanish - I was not able to find anything of use. Searching Google for '"cazador" el paso and southwestern' brings up a number of hits indicating that it was a water station. WP:STATION applies. BTW - Cazador was part of a group deletion, there might be some resources listed that could be of help. As Cazador had no legal recognition, it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. As there is at best trivial coverage, it does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND Cxbrx ( talk) 04:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Asher, Arizona

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

A passing siding and nothing more. No buildings or other signs of a settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning delete According to this article, the spot was only a railroad station until the 1950s, when a family opened a motel and small housing development on the site. The name Asher apparently stuck for the site, since a 1960 article uses it (and mentions the same family who opened the motel). The trouble is, the first article implies there was no community here before the 1950s, and whatever happened in the 1950s didn't really seem to get off the ground, since there sure isn't much at the site today. Interstate 8 would have bypassed the motel in the 1970s, and while there's something that could be a trailer park on aerial imagery from the 1990s, it's gone by the early 2000s. Without any evidence that this was a more permanent or otherwise notable settlement, I'm inclined to call it a short-lived locale and delete it. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Another rail stop from the steam engine days or passing siding, never a community of any kind. I discount that it ever had a class-3 post office; the source says Asher (Wellton) which I believe means the post office was in Wellton. The newspaper article says the "developer" was planning a motel, cafe, and 15 houses on 1/2 acre lots. I looked at the area with the Yuma County GIS app and didn't see the 15 lots, so I doubt his community ever got off the ground. MB 16:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with everyrthing User:MB noted; seems to be lacking enough information to meet WP:GNG 10Sany1? ( talk) 21:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. The post office reference was the only reference I could find that states that Asher had a post office. As the reference seems to concern a proposed helicopter route, I question as to whether there actually was a post office at Asher. Barnes does not list Asher. Searching Newspapers.com for "Wellton Asher in Arizona" found [87] and the article found by TheCatalyst31. Here's a passing trivial reference for Asher being a town. Here's an SP timetable that mentions Asher. Asher appears in a 1926 map. Asher is not listed in a 1934 Arizona Railroad Distance Guide, though Wellton is. Asher was clearly a railroad station, so WP:STATION applies. Other than one possibly suspect reference, there are no other references supporting the fact that Asher had a post office, so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. Asher has almost no coverage, the coverage that is present is trivial, so Asher does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx ( talk) 03:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tabla. Consensus is that available refs to not establish notability per relevant guidelines. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 17:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Kayda

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

The topic of the article appears to be for a musical phrase, however, the specific phrase that this article is about is not notable; all sources are self-published, and the article has several NPOV issues. Edit: the article has undergone a redesign; the NPOV issues were mostly fixed, however the sources still do not establish notability. JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 02:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The content now has been changed....please review now and tell me if there are any faults in the page Kayda. ShubhanTelang ( talk) 03:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article is not self-sufficient to be recognized as an independent article. At best some information can be merged or exported to tabla, though mostly it sounds like how to or tutorial. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 13:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Tabla. Clearly is a thing, but if the given references are a fair sampling of what sources are available, then the subject does not have the legs for a standalone article - I would say only two (the Rhombus book and Hindustani Classical Music page) can work as somewhat reliable sources under our guidelines. Thus, treat as subsection within a larger article, where it is easier to get away with borderline refs. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Actually Kayda is a topic that should be kept separate as it is a very important topic in Tabla. But if it is to be merged with the page of Tabla, then I think it should be merged rather than deleting the whole page. ShubhanTelang ( talk) 02:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Kit Kemp

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

The given sources do not show in-depth coverage of the subject herself. A BEFORE search gives me some interviews in low-profile sources and a good number of passing mentions, but there doesn't seem to be enough here for a standalone article. It also reads somewhat like a PR bio. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Seems to have received coverage in some major sources: NYTimes, The Times, Independent, Telegraph, DailyMail, short mention in Vanity Fair. (I did however also just see low-profile sources for the first few pages of Google). In addition to having received a (what I think counts here as a lower level) Order of the British Empire title, I think this is a keep – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    The NYTimes source is good, though I'm not sure it qualifies as in-depth coverage. I can't comment on the Times, because I don't have access. Independent is an interview, so very much suboptimal to establish notability, and the Telegraph source is mostly about her house, not so much about her. Daily mail is written in first person, so not independent coverage and essentially an advert. I agree that notability here can be considered borderline (and I'm not trying to question your keep vote), but combined with the PR bio aspect, I still think deletion is adequate here. Best, Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appears to meet the threshold as an author, with multiple independent reviews of her three books. Also press coverage per Þjarkur, above, as well as numerous additional magazine articles. Espresso Addict ( talk) 13:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are no glaring issues in terms of notability in my mind, and also looks good in terms of sourcing and reference support.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 21:27, 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

DJ Young Chow

DJ Young Chow (  | 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 dj, no meaningful coverage, never charted and it's basically just a resume. All the sources are either unreliable, paid for, interviews or press releases. Praxidicae ( talk) 00:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Gary Gray (author)

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

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial sources that could demonstrate notability. Poorly sourced now for several years. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Dropped pin Near Estepona, 29680, Málaga https://goo.gl/maps/cLaeSMdR1rs3dJjJ7
  2. ^ Dropped pin Near Fin del túnel subterráneo del río Monterroso., Paseo Marítimo Pedro Manrique, 30, 29680 Estepona, Málaga https://goo.gl/maps/xSd8iKbRvwdTmB2c9
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_November_21&oldid=992368154"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 20 November 22 >

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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 10:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Plaza Hotel, College Station

Plaza Hotel, College Station (  | 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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. The article makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Run-of-the mill hotel, lacking any real notability beyond the local level. TH1980 ( talk) 04:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no indication of historic significance Spiderone 10:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This probably almost meets WP:GNG already, but I can't quite tell: a couple of the KBTX links are broken, I can't access The Eagle since that website is geoblocked. However, this was the first major hotel capable of handling conventions built in College Station, and while the archives I have access to don't cover the construction of the 17-storey high rise, the hotel received significant coverage during its construction: [1] [2] [3], noting how the building alone was the reason for a spike in building permit revenue [4] along with coverage of its sale out of bankruptcy court: [5] And its construction was even important enough to be blurbed about far away from College Station: [6]. That's just the construction alone, an implosion tends to generate GNG-calibre coverage as well and so I think this is an easy pass. SportingFlyer T· C 18:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, TH1980, and WP:MILL. This was a 17-story chain hotel in a college town. Coverage was local. How is that notable in any way? Bearian ( talk) 21:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Well, let's see - the building passes WP:GNG, was the first hotel in town which allowed the town to start hosting conferences, it was the tallest structure in town that wasn't a radio tower (according to Emporis) and it was imploded, which generated a bit of news coverage. I know everyone's saying WP:MILL here, but just being locally notable isn't a reason for deletion - I've finished a couple articles on hotels recently where the only major coverage was local, but the buildings are still important enough to warrant an article. I think this hotel also clearly qualifies - I think everyone is assuming that it's some no-name branded hotel by the side of the road, but it's not. SportingFlyer T· C 22:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 22:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Cine Capri

Cine Capri (  | 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 does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. It makes no claim for general notability WP:GNG or historic, social, economic, or architectural importance WP:NBUILD. WP:BEFORE revealed normal WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL mentions/promos/ads, and directory style listings.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep This is a very well know landmark in Phoenix and covered in dozens of articles. A quarter-million people signed a petition to save it from demolition. The article needs better referencing. MB 03:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Like with Los Arcos, the problem here is lack of sourcing. There is also apparently a story from 1997 in Preservation magazine on the demolition; it is, like Los Arcos, going to clobber the GNG. Next time you see an article on a Phoenix-area topic, call on me or MB, because we have the Newspapers.com access to fix this sort of stuff. Here's just a taste: [7], [8], [9] [10], [11] Raymie ( t • c) 07:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily passes WP:NBUILD. Just needs to be properly referenced. SportingFlyer T· C 17:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If there is anything salvageable, let me know and I'll pull it from the article for you for merging. Missvain ( talk) 22:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Gran Bel Fisher

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

Released two albums for Hollywood Records, but one was only an EP. Appearead on a Greys Anatomy compliation but was only one of several acts.

Sources are all WP:PRIMARY. Searching back issues of Billboard along with newspapers.com yielded only passing mentions at best. Best I could find was one review from AllMusic. His content did not chart anywhere. The only two hits on Billboard.com are name-drops of him in the context of other artists or labels.

It was previously stated that he is a former member of the unquestionably notable Marshall Dyllon, but I'm having a hard time corroborating this. The claim seems to trace back to a long-defunct songwriter/publisher website added as a source to the Marshall Dyllon page ages ago, which doesn't even mention Marshall Dyllon at all. The insert in Marshall Dyllon's debut album, as transcribed on a long-abandoned Angelfire fan page, does claim that Jesse Littleton is from Sabina, Ohio, while AllMusic does give GBF's real name as "Jesse Littleton" and claim that he is from Sabina, Ohio. However, I'm not sure if a flyer issued as a bonus inside of a CD is a reliable source, especially when the only trace of it is the above transcription. I have found no sources whatsoever that have both "Marshall Dyllon" and "Gran Bel Fisher" in them, and you'd think that if he had been in another band, no matter how briefly, that at least one publicist would have made note of this. For this reason, I don't think that a merge/redirect to Marshall Dyllon would be warranted. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Whitehouse.org

Whitehouse.org (  | 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- WP:MILL comedy site which got some sparse coverage from notable media sources. At best, this is a case of WP:1E, with that one event being the conflict with Cheney's office. Outside of this one event, every last reference is either from the site itself (a primary source if there ever was one), or non-notable sources that, in some cases, would provide a "reference" for any website (like WHOIS). HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 21:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No view on the notability of the web site, but WP:1E has no application here. 1E applies to "individuals" notable for a single event. This AfD concerns a web site (not an individual) ... and one that has been operating for more than 20 years. The notability of the web site should be assessed under WP:GNG and perhaps also WP:WEBCRIT. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Cbl62, you have a good point. However, I fail to see how most of the coverage from mainstream media sources passes WP:WEBCRIT; I would argue that the only three references from reliable sources that count as vaguely notable are the first two New York Times ones and the Salon one, all of which are relatively brief and could be argued to not constitute significant coverage on their own; the second New York Times reference is about a play based on the website and makes only brief (about two paragraphs) reference to the site itself. The CNN reference is both mildly questionable in its status as a secondary source (it's an interview with the site's owner during an episode of a talk show, which I would consider to be a questionably independent source) and highly questionable in its notability (said talk show, while notable enough for its own page, is so obscure it doesn't even show up in the CNN Original Programming template), and the Washington Post reference is a dead link. I cannot find much else coverage of the site in the Find sources for Google News. Therefore, I would argue that it does not pass WP:WEBCRIT, and rather or not it passes WP:GNG is debatable. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be based on 3rd party sources, and for a long running website if there is really only one event that ever got quality coverage, we should not have an article on the website. The event itself does not seem to rise to being notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Meh. Barely notable and only sometimes funny. Bearian ( talk) 21:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Broderick, James F.; Miller, Darren W. (2007). "Chapter 97: WhiteHouse.org". Consider the Source: A Critical Guide to 100 Prominent News and Information Sites on the Web. Medford, New Jersey: Information Today. pp. 419–422. ISBN  978-0-910965-77-4. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

      The book provides five pages of coverage about Whitehouse.org. The book notes in the "Overview" section of the chapter:

      WhiteHouse.org is a satirical site—an acid-tongued spin on President George W. Bush and his administration. When you realize your mistake, you may be tempted to exit the page and head to the real White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov). But if you flee, you'll be missing one of the best examples of biting, incisive satire on the Web.

      As with all effective satire, Whitehouse.org is impolite, perhaps even a tough vulgar. Fans of the Republican administration will likely be put off by the harsh tenor of much of the site's "news" articles. But if you believe that the purpose of the popular press is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable (the creed of many professional journalists), you'll realize how firmly this site is rooted in the American tradition of muckraking.

    2. Ristow, Richard (September–October 2004). "Lampooning the Buffoon: fun on the internet at W's expense". Clamor. p. 21. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

      The article notes:

      Shortly after Bush was "appointed" by the Supreme Court, John Wooden thought Bush's new White House would be "super-meaty project." All he needed was a name, and the whitehouse.org web domain just happened to be free.

      Wooden's parody is a mirror distortion of the real White House's web site. Whitehouse.org is complete with clickable links to things like the Department of Faith, Homeland Security, and Fraternal Affairs. ... Back at Whitehouse.org, the main page also offers Onionesque press releases, including: "President's Armed Forces Radio Address to America's Troops on the Glorious Occasion of their Retroactive Induction into Eternal Martial Slavery" ...

    3. Weiser, Benjamin (2003-03-06). "Web Site Hears From Cheney After Parody Involving Wife". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-11-29. Retrieved 2020-11-29.

      The article notes:

      The site (www.whitehouse.org) lampoons senior members of the administration, from the president on down. The Bush Administration, it says on one page. Courage. Passion. Faith. Petroleum. Xenophobia.

      The site is meant to be a parody of the actual White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov), Mr. Wooden said.

      Mr. Wooden, of Brooklyn, said he has operated the site since 2001, and no one in the Bush administration had complained before the letter from Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington.

    4. This website Archive from the website's creator provides a list of media quotes about the website:
      1. “Hilarious” – The New York Times
      2. “In” – Vanity Fair
      3. “Spot on” – BBC
      4. “Hysterical… Searing political parody” – CNN
      5. “Brilliantly ham-fisted” – TIME
      6. “Scathing… Wickedly funny” – Detroit Metro Times
      7. “Offensive, irreverent… bitingly funny.” – Orlando Sentinel
      8. “The jury is out on Wooden’s ability to make anyone laugh.” – New York Post
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Whitehouse.org to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 10:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The Last Outpost (video game)

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

The only sources listed have been dead for years, and I can't find anything else about this game online (except for exact copies of this very article.) Most Horizontal Primate ( talk) 21:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Nick Roes

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

Certainly accomplished, but not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Searches did not turn up enough to indicate he passes WP:NAUTHOR, either. Onel5969 TT me 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Notability questions. I'm open to feedback from other editors on the notability. One of this subject's peers -- noted in the Wiki as a wiki link -- has fewer citations but a solid page which was considering in publishing this subject's page as they are related. I agree WP:NSCHOLAR and WP:NAUTHOR are not appropriate, but I feel WP:GNG standard is met with the handful of citations on the subject. Happy to work with other editors to improve the article accordingly. 10Sany1? ( talk) 22:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is so heavily promotional, so clearly based on personally-provided materials (e.g. "Certificate of Recognition from New York State"), and so unrelated to its creator's other edits as to make me strongly suspect undisclosed paid editing. Regardless of whether the subject is notable (and he may be, as a book author at least), WP:TNT or even possibly WP:CSD#G11 applies. More attention to possibly-promotional editing is warranted at a couple of articles that are otherwise unrelated: Caroline Casagrande and Jill Kelley (where the same editor was reverted twice by User:C.Fred and User:Fat Irish Guy). — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Apologize User:David_Eppstein if you are misunderstanding my edits. I closely follow many topics, including politics, history among other things. I also watch pages I edit as some editors seem to have personal issues with political figures especially, and violatae WP:BLP rules entirely.
Curious User:David_Eppstein help me understand what you feel is promotional in this article? Happy to consider your thoughts. 10Sany1? ( talk) 17:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
improved article removed info unrelated to subject as author or addiction specialist. Also pointing out William Richard Miller page defines a peer of subject, an article with fewer resources, books and citations. WP:AUTHOR should be reconsidered here. 10Sany1? ( talk) 17:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Still heavily promotional. If you are looking for tips for improvement, my first would be: disclose your conflicts of interest, as Wikipedia requires you to do. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I was not asking you how to improve the article, I was asking you to declare in what way you feel it's promotional, as it is not promoting anything. Can you explain why specifically you are saying this is promotional? There is no conflict of interest here, not sure why you immediately assume so? Not exactly assuming good faith. 10Sany1? ( talk) 19:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

10SFan ( talk) 20:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:31, 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 keep. Missvain ( talk) 22:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of British Army Reserve Units (2020)

List of British Army Reserve Units (2020) (  | 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:GNG, WP:SNG and WP:ARTN and why do we need a list of units? Totally unreferenced and created by a blocked user BlueD954 ( talk) 03:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It needs to be better sourced and renamed (removing the "2020"), but it is a perfectly valid article as a list of current Army Reserve units. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Keep for what? You made no effort to address the issues. BlueD954 ( talk) 11:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Necrothesp. FOARP ( talk) 10:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Necrothesp and WP:NNC. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. See why this PROD was deleted. BlueD954 ( talk) 13:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no independent sourcing, lacks notability. Fram ( talk) 11:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - as I have repeatedly shown below, these units are attributed in multiple, independent, reliable sources. AfD is not cleanup. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      • As has been repeatedly explained to you, you need sources for the list topic, not for individual entries, to show that the list is about a notable topic. And as has been repeatedly said, you need to provide better sources; the first one you add is for the Honourable Artillery Company, where you start with this, which is their homepage. Nope, not independent at all, obviously. So why bother listing it, if not for reference padding, for showing "look how many references there are"? I'm not going to wade through that list of references if this is what you present (second source; [12] an army website, again not independent; then don't bother including it here.) None of the other HAC sources do anything at all to make "list of British Army Reserve Units (2020)" a notable subject. The sources in your next bullet point aren't any better, something like this is not giving any notability to this list, nor even to the RMRE. You include LinkedIn, for crying out loud. It's a laundry list of everything you could find, no matter if it was relevant, reliable, independent, ... No thanks, don't bother, it's desperate instead of convincing. Fram ( talk) 08:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Your feelings on this issue are leading you to make incorrect statements. The subject of this list is 2020; this means that citing all the independent sources - yes, including LinkedIn, that shows it's current this year - validate that the units exist - though you incorrectly say they're passing mentions, some are specifically on the units concerned. The point is that all the association and other sources prove the units existed in the last twelve or so months (and the Army sites back that up, which is why I also noted their existence). That was my objective. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
            • I don't think anyone doubted there existence, which isn't the reason this one is up for deletion or why I voted "delete". The lack of notability is not solved by primary sources, Linkedin, or passing mentions. Feel free to repost a heavily pruned list of sources which actually do show notability, as the ones I checked from yor list fell way short of that mark. Fram ( talk) 08:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I would prefer not to see a proliferation of orbats. Dormskirk ( talk) 14:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm not keen on the idea of having lists of military units with arbitrary dates, but this is a list of current units, which has obvious encyclopedic and navigational value. It's not "Totally unreferenced", and even if it was that wouldn't be much of a reason to delete it given that sources will be easily available. The fact that it was created by a blocked user doesn't mean it should be deleted unless it has no significant contributions from other people. I should point out that WP:LISTN says Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, so that isn't necessarily a valid argument either. Hut 8.5 18:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comments Is there a reason that Units of the British Army, that includes reserves, couldn't be updated? Otr500 ( talk) 02:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Good point, so there is no need for this page. Mztourist ( talk) 08:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This article is far more detailed than that one so what you're suggesting is a merge rather than deletion. The destination article is getting rather long so it may still be a good idea to have a separate article. Hut 8.5 09:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Some of the Keep rationales have been rebutted here, especially on the quality of the sources, and one of them even suggests that the best plan would be to return the article to Draft for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Pro Wrestling Australia

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

Contest speedy for gregarious and unsourced reasons that smack of original research and fan bias. Previously redirected as Pro Wrestling Alliance Australia with the redirect later deleted as the target was redirected as well. Makes no claim in the article to notability and relies too heavily on it's own website, Cage Match and Wrestling Data. Therefore is not notable and is certainly not the "biggest wrestling company in Sydney" judging by the lack of sources that confirm the contrary Addicted4517 ( talk) 09:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Honest question, do you know anything about professional wrestling? and are you Australian?.If the answer is no to both maybe you should stop trying to interfere on professional wrestling pages. However if you think the PWA article should be deleted then I would propose you delete any article in relation to Australian independent Professional Wrestling as none of them are notable. The list of professional wrestling organisations in Australia article features promotions who do not run shows nor are as notable as PWA. So my recommendation would be to remove that article for not being notable as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.101.171.34 ( talk) 07:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, yes and the remainder of this comment is entirely inappropriate as there is no understanding of policy, in particular about the difference between articles and lists like the list of professional wrestling organisations in Australia. Your original research re PWA's notability is against WP policy. If you believe PWA is notable you must locate sources to prove this, and as I have already looked and there are not there would be no point. This is not the case for Riot City Wrestling as an example. Addicted4517 ( talk) 04:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Also, even if we have articles for promotions that are less notable than this article that would be a case for deleting them not keeping this one.-- 65.92.160.124 ( talk) 22:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
One problem. All four links are promotional, especially the last two (with the first only being a trivial mention. There are also serious WP:INHERIT issues with the SMH article with all the mentions of WWE personnel, as well as similar but not as obvious issues with the Supanova article. It should noted with that link also that Supanova concentrated on the promotions that have a history of presenting shows at Supanova events, furthering the promotional issues. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Removing the last link, I think the content in the other three links are very objective and neutral, and when there is content as you are calling promotional, it is always a quote from someone else, and it is correctly indicated as being so. I also could not identify the same INHERIT issues as you did; none of the arguments used as example in INHERIT apply here. There are multiple personnel involved, and it just confirms that the promotion is notable. Also, it seems INHERIT is written for cases where there is no "verifiable" sources stating notability, which is not the case here. Mathias ( talk)
The moment a source is subject to WP:PROMO, it fails the test of objectivity and neutrality by default. Your use of the link with the WWE wrestlers is an example of the following per WP:INHERIT; "Keep: there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable" Granted this isn't a list, but the concept of "lots of famous people" is the same. The reality is that as WP:PROMO rules these sources out, there are indeed no verifiable sources. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
An even bigger problem is that the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP which requires "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. So the first reference relies entirely on an interview with Ryan Eagles and has no "Independent Content". The next relies on information provided by a wrestler named Bonza and fails for the same reason. The next sees this organization included in a list but contains zero in-depth information as is required and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The final reference is arguably not a reliable source, is promotional, but also fails to provide any in-depth information and also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing ++ 18:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
PWA is fundamentally different than a list, so I still do not see how WP:INHERIT applies here. I have not seen in the archives, anyone claiming that a company does not inherit notability from their multiple products, or a school does not inherit notability from their multiple students, and this seems naïve per WP:INHERIT. Unless the company or school had a single notable product or student, which is the only case covered by WP:INHERIT. PWA is also a wrestling school, and these are often associated to their "alumnis"; actually, in this sense PWA seems as notable or more notable than many schools out there (exemple: Laanila_Highschool, Arsakeio_Lyceum_of_Patras, Escola_Alegria_de_Saber, Merici_Academy).
If for a second we consider the "school" side of PWA, its notability is further strengtened. For example, notable people that performed for PWA:
Also many of these links talk about PWA events. "Rock lost the Pro Wrestling Australia heavyweight title to Caveman Ugg this summer. He had defeated Robbie Eagles for the strap back in June." These statements assert the notability of whom? The wrestler? The event? The promotion? The discussions in the archives show public opinion would say it supports the notability of all of them, though the event would be ruled out for not having other supporting sources. The wrestler and the promotion seems to have enough support, though.
There also seems to be a large disadvantage because the promotion does not sell physical products, but rather events made by people and attended by an agitated audience, which is why sources on the promotion will often talk about certain wrestlers, or interview them about their experience; if they sold inanimate products, nobody would be saying PWA inherits notability of them, as is happening here. If you see the "product" as being the wrestlers that appeared in the promotion's events, many of these products are notable, as shown in the links above. The history of the promotion is the history of these wrestlers that achieved fame after passing through PWA, just like the history of your usual company is hardly based on the evolution of its products; again another reason as to why WP:INHERIT makes no sense to me.
I agree with HighKing that the sources I gave are individually not as rich in content as we would need, but summing up the numerous information about PWA events and wrestlers out there, I cannot agree that PWA does not meet the notability standards commonly accepted here on Wikipedia. I disagree that the sources are PRIMARY, though. The authors are not directly involved with the promotion, and they do offer their own analysis of the subject. Seems to fit WP:SECONDARY more. WP:GNG seems to apply if considering that the set of sources and statements constitute significant coverage, as seems to be the case to me.
"The moment a source is subject to WP:PROMO, it fails the test of objectivity and neutrality by default." seems like a convenient way to always make yourself right. In any case, I understand why one would see the sources as non-neutral, as it contains quotes from people. But quotes are quotes, and as long as they are clearly identified as being so, the content can remain neutral. In this respect, HighKing's arguments make sense, in that there is much less content if you remove all the quotes. But see the sources and arguments I gave above. Mathias ( talk) 05:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Clearly you do not understand the restrictions of inherited notability as you just did it again through every single name you put there - indeed as you admitted ("makes no sense to me"). The claim to notability must be neutral and independent of any other subject. You are in effect promoting the school yourself by using those names. As WP:INHERIT makes clear, that is an argument avoid in an AfD and yet you are trying to make such a case. And no, they are primary sources because they are promotional - that is, the promotion had massive input to the sources to the degree that all neutrality and objectivity disappeared. Taking quotes from involved wrestlers is risky at best to back that up. To that end you need sources that avoid these factors entirely, and they don't exist as indicated below by High King. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You have failed to make the case for WP:INHERIT here, as your best argument involves frivolously calling the promotion article a WP:LIST. Without the list assumption, you are unable to point out the argument in WP:INHERIT that applies here, as none of them refer to inheritance from multiple entities, nor to cases where the relation to other objects is notable per itself. Mathias ( talk) 04:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You listed notable wrestlers above in a manner that contradicts your claims entirely. Thank you. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Each of these claims have no sources whatsoever and should therefore be ignored, unless sources to prove them are provided. Addicted4517 ( talk) 02:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I think it is very rude to say his vote should be "ignored". Are you a moderator here? Even if you are, that is going too far... Mathias ( talk)
I was referring to his claims, not his vote. Please read what I said again if you wouldn't mind. Addicted4517 ( talk) 05:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I was not really focusing too much on the word "vote" when I commented. It does not matter. It is impolite to say anything anyone said should be ignored. Unless of course you are a moderator and, as a consequence, fully knowledgeable of the norms and policies around here. This does not seem to be the case, though, now that I searched. In general, not only your statement above, you are more assertive than your actual position and status supports, especially considering the conflict of interest, resulting from your involvement in this deletion process. I read Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process, and the "closing administrator" is able to make the right call to give less weight or not (notice how it is more polite to put it like this) to the vote of Pidzz, without your intervention or comment. Ironically, what might be ignored here is your undue intervention. Mathias ( talk) 05:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Again, you have failed to address my comment correctly. The focus was the claims, not the vote or the person. Your response here can be interpreted as willfully disruptive. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Leaving aside the fact that the article is totally refbombed with 58 sources, most are PRIMARY sources. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they are all promotional and/or PRIMARY and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/ WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 18:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
HighKing, I think the points you raised are very sound. I read Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion and, if possible, wanted to know your opinion on merging the article on, for example, Professional wrestling in Australia. Mathias ( talk) 06:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
My opinion would be "No", for what it's worth. None of the promotions that do have articles are mentioned there (and nor should they be as none have done anything notable despite the promotions themselves being so although I query - and have done for some time - Melbourne City Wrestling's). To merge would be inconsistent, and would also attract random redirects of promotions that could never be made into articles going forward. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Hi MathArcher, it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this article. Be aware that you can always request that the article is moved to drafts so that you might continue to work on it and it would preserve the editing history. On the surface, there is a case for merging the article with Professional wrestling in Australia and is seems logical to discuss professional franchises and promotions in that article but Addicted4517 makes the point that the article currently doesn't have anything to say on those. That doesn't mean that a new section couldn't be created or wouldn't be relevant. You might want to ask at that article's Talk page? You could also create a "List of wrestling promotions in Australia" article and describe each promotion in a short paragraph. HighKing ++ 12:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Ok, thanks a lot for replying, HighKing. I will consider your suggestions, particularly the tlak page one. There already exists List_of_professional_wrestling_organisations_in_Australia, but the edit history suggests that Addicted owns it, so I do not intend to touch it. Also thanks for the cordiality. Mathias ( talk) 04:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
No one owns anything on Wikipedia. My activity on that page is simply to maintain the established status quo with such lists that is "no entries that do not have articles on Wikipedia". That is not owning the page. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

KEEP This article should be kept as PWA is one of the leading promotions in Australia. I am working on reliable secondary sources to cover this article. But if anything at this stage, let's see it moved back to the draft space until it is sufficient for those involved to see it moved back to the main article space. Even last resort, as mentioned above, added to professional wrestling in Australia in a paragraph. There is a severe lack of coverage of Oceana professional wrestling in the notability essay which is a bias towards this region, something on which we should all work on changing. Let work together! Thank you. Jammo85 ( talk) 14:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

There are no reliable independent secondary sources. This has already been established. Sending it to draft is not an option as it has already been brought out of draft prematurely three times. That can not be allowed to happen again. The reason there is no coverage is quite simple. It is not notable. There are no sources that pass the requirements of this online encyclopedia. When there are no sources that pass all the required criteria, articles are deleted. That is just the way it is. This promotion is not notable. It is NOT "one of the leading promotions in Australia" because there are no independent reliable sources that recognise it as such. That being case, claiming that it is would be original research. The option of merging with Professional wrestling in Australia has already been addressed. There needs to be a local event that had major coverage for it to be included, and there has only been one (the one that is already there). Addicted4517 ( talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, we all know your stance on this. Reliable independent and secondary sources should be available for this article in the near future. So seeing this article back in the draft space would be optimum over a deletion, because the page will just be re-created when these sources are available and I can predict what will happen. Jammo85 ( talk) 14:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
It is not my stance. It is fact. There are no reliable independent secondary sources. Your prediction is a violation of WP:CBALL and is therefore not relevant. It will not go back to draft because Pidzz will just put it back into the main space again without a review as he has done three times already. This promotion is not notable under the rules already noted. Your arguments fail multiple points in WP:ATA. WP:SOURCESEXIST, a version of WP:MERCY and a less blatant version of WP:ILIKEIT than Pidzz are the stand outs. Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Concertmusic: Both of the first two links are promotional and are therefore not independent and can not be used to prove notability as a result. The last link only makes a casual mention of PWA and concentrates on the female wrestlers and the subject of intergender wrestling. The article is also more focussed on Melbourne than Sydney as well. The issue with the lack of independent reliable sources remains as is. There are none. Addicted4517 ( talk) 04:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - neither of the sources provided by Concertmusic could be considered "promotional" - the SMH and ABC are clearly sources that are independent of the organisation, particularly the former. This meets GNG, despite the state of the article (which is not an issue for AfD). Deus et lex ( talk) 09:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Deus et lex: It would appear that you did not read the ABC link. It makes one casual mention on this promotion. I was not referring to it as promotional. The two I was calling promotional were the Kokatu link and the SMH link. The SMH link is definitely promotional on the headline alone where it quotes the promotion itself. It follows this with two biased remarks without proof in the first paragraph alone ("Australia's top professional wrestlers" and "its grandest ever show") and then quotes from the wrestlers themselves before the clearly promotional quote at the end of the article. It does not matter that the Sydney Morning Herald is a reliable source normally. In this case they are promoting an event and it invalidates the article as independent. Addicted4517 ( talk) 10:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It is not a promotional article. The SMH is independent of the source. The fact that it talks about an event does not make it unreliable. A promotional article is one that is sponsored by the event or something like that. This does not fall in that category. Your statement is not correct. I think you need to accept that this article is covered by valid sources and stop trying to draw some spurious argument about sources to make a point that isn't there. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
And just to add, if it was something sourced from a media release, it would attribute something to a "spokesperson" or something like that. This article does not do that. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It is a promotional article. It does not have to be paid for - that's WP:ADV. The language used in the article is clear. It is promoting the event, and is therefore not independent. Do not assume based on SMH's general reputation. The specific source is not reliable. Besides as High King pointed out above there needs to be at least two to pass WP:NCORP. Also, the quotes are effectively press releases. I think you need to accept that this article has no independent substantive reliable coverage and that my argument is not spurious. It is strong based in policy and a failure to recognise promotion when one sees it doesn't assist the opposed view. Addicted4517 ( talk) 23:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I really get frustrated when I have to engage with such nonsense arguments like this on AfDs (and there's some pretty bad arguments added on AfDs about sources out there). You are just making things up and reading something into a source that isn't there to argue a point that is soundly wrong. There is nothing in that article that suggests it is promotional. The SMH is a longstanding independent newspaper and has a good reputation for good journalism. It is an ordinary journalistic article. Deus et lex ( talk) 11:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It is clear here that you have failed to recognise a promotional article when you see one. I am not making things up. You are trying to place the SMH's reputation ahead of the individual article, and that is an error on your part. It is an ordinary journalistic article that promotes an event. A refusal to see this really frustrates me. Addicted4517 ( talk) 22:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
That doesn't make the article promotional. If you say that article is promotional then any article that talks about an event or something happening would fall foul of that policy, meaning that the only articles possibly used for reliability are critical ones. That would rule out a whole swathe of articles that are validly used in countless other articles. Promotional articles have to do a lot more than just talk about that an event is happening. This is not one of them. Deus et lex ( talk) 01:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Return to Draft - If this article is kept it will be the wrong decision even though consensus appears to be otherwise. Addicted's arguments can't be ignored; except for one. Returning it to draft. Jammo has claimed fresh sources and he should be given the chance to provide them and draft mode would be ideal for this. Addicted's concern over Pidzz restoring it again can be prevented by an administrator locking off the move option to prevent this. That way it can be independently reviewed once Jammo finishes his claimed work, but if he doesn't and leaves it for six months, Addicted will get his way anyway. I think this is the best solution for the prevailing situation. Wang.Wahine 00:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Can a move be blocked without blocking other things as well? Addicted4517 ( talk) 07:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Yup! Wang.Wahine 05:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This could be closed as merge, as it has been done previously, however there is no one coming up in favor of merge after second relisting. (non-admin closure) SMB9 9thx my edits! 07:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown

2020 Russian Mil Mi-24 shootdown (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS WP:GNG, common sense. Non-notable military incident with no consequences to aviation regulations or procedures and minimal diplomatic consequences. Military accidents/incidents are generally not notable in their own right. Petebutt ( talk) 03:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 03:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Գարիկ Ավագյան, this seems a textbook example of WP:ASSERTN. Can you explain why you think the subject is notable? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 17:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Brigade Piron, there is still investigation going on this incident. We need a bit more time for serious analysis, however there are already claims from experts that the main purpose was to disrupt the ceasefire agreement in Karabakh. And probably, this was done from Turkish border/by Turkey. After this incident, the agreement were signed between three countries, not including Turkey itself. So, this incident is a precedent of the end of 2020 Karabakh War. I suggest not to remove immediately, but to wait a bit more. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 17:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Գարիկ Ավագյան, that sounds like WP:CRYSTAL? — Brigade Piron ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
That does not explain by any stretch of the imagination why is this article supposedly less notable than others. Super Ψ Dro 00:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The Bushranger:
1. The shootdown is not WP:ROTM for at least two reasons. Firstly, it was a shootdown of the military aircraft of a non-belligerent power. It is not run-of-the-mill to shoot down military aircraft from a power you are not at war with. Secondly, the shootdown did not occur in a warzone. There were no hostilities near the Nakhchivan-Armenian border. It is not run-of-the-mill to shoot down military aircraft far from a warzone.
2. As for the "notability is not inherited" argument, I'm not sure why you think that it applies. If the shootdown lead to the armistice, it is only because the shootdown was independently notable, because it could have drawn Russia into a conflict with Azerbaijan, which could have led to a Russo-Turkish war. Even if it had been an Armenian aircraft that was shot down, it could have triggered the Russo-Armenian mutual defense treaties (the CSTO and a separate 1997 treaty) and Russia's entry into the war given that the shootdown occurred inside Armenian airspace proper. So no, the shootdown was not simply an event that may have led to the ceasefire. It was already notable before the ceasefire.
-- JECE ( talk) 15:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I initially closed this as merge but have been asked to allow more opportunity for discussion, which is not a bad thing in general terms
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 22:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Chengmai Center

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 TT me 19:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Tradewinds Square Tower A

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Onel5969 TT me 19:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Guru Nanak. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of places visited by Guru Nanak

List of places visited by Guru Nanak (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely unreferenced list that, I believe, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Will happily withdraw if it turns out that these visits form a coherent set meeting WP:LISTN— Guru_Nanak#Journeys_(Udasis) suggests that they might—but at present I'm not seeing it. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is merging an unsourced list a good idea?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Feel free to discuss mergers, if of interest, via the merge process on talk pages. TY! Missvain ( talk) 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Tapete

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

Zero in-depth coverage that I could find. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 23:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 22:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Joan Brown (artist)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. The article is based primarily on a primary source interview. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 ( talk) 18:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Even by the standards of 20th-century Oklahoman women artists, this person is incredibly obscure. It appears people might be working their way through the Oklahoma Native Artists Oral History Project at OSU and creating articles for everyone interviewed in that project? Those are primary sources, not secondary published sources indicating any degree of notability. Ahalenia ( talk) 03:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the chapter in the Broder book looks fine, but you can't base an article on only one decent secondary source. No luck in searches. There should be more articles on Native American women artists, but unfortunately this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Curiocurio ( talk) 00:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Switch to Keep due to the excellent work done by Jooojay. A surprising and welcome rescue. Curiocurio ( talk) 13:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – this article needed more clean up in my opinion. I added a few new citations (it's now up to 14 sources) and I believe this passes WP:GNG now. It's hard to find sources because "Joan Brown" is a common name and a lot of the wrong sources show up, she does seem to have significant press and experience within the Native American museum scene and her alma mater Bacone College has a notable art program. She was mentioned in many sources as one of the well known artist from Bacone College, which I think fulfills WP:ARTIST. Jooojay ( talk) 08:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – There may be a COI issue with this article, I noticed one editor used a primary source from the University of Oklahoma interview and they went on to use more primary sources from that same publisher in many other article related to the arts and the museum. A notice was left on the talk page. Jooojay ( talk) 09:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep The Joan Brown who is the subject of this article is a well known Cherokee artist. Numerous sources confirm she was a leading artist among her peers in her prolific period [25], [26], [27] and being asked by Red Earth Festival to participate in the oral history project is clear indicator of her notability. She wouldn't have been asked to exhibit at the Cherokee National Museum [28] had her tribe not felt her work was exemplary. Being designated a Master Artist of the Five Civilized Tribes Museum is a significant award for Native artists. [29] Having pieces in major Native American galleries, collections, and museums is significant. [30] [31] [32] [33] There is adequate information here to confirm that she is notable. (Given the time frame that she was prolific, and the closed nature of Native American art circles, major repositories like the collections at the Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma, or Bacone College are the likely places one will find material on Native subjects. I have been unable to find archives of Muskogee, Tahlequah, or Tulsa newspapers which cover the 1970-1990 period, but those are far more likely to carry information on her than papers in Oklahoma City.) SusunW ( talk) 15:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Every artist who exhibits gets written somewhere about but wp:artist provides clear notability requirements:
"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
"The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
Which of these criteria apply to this artist? Ahalenia ( talk) 16:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Ahalenia reply
Comment For the purposes of AFD, it is sufficient to pass the lower threshold of WP:GNG, which this artist clearly does. Curiocurio ( talk) 18:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY adding a dozen WP:RS to the original 2. Nice work @ Jooojay: Theredproject ( talk) 15:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per the excellent research and improvemnt work of Jooojay, the artist passes WP:GNG. Netherzone ( talk) 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The improvements make this article a worthy encyclopedia entry with good sourcing and support. I would encourage previous reviewers to take another look.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – this is an example where adding a tag like {{more refs}} would have been more appropriate first, especially if the proposer has difficultly finding references for a person with a common name. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-This article is worthy of keeping as Joan Brown in a significant Oklahoma artist. This page has been critiqued for using sources too closely connected with the state of Oklahoma and its universities. However, due to the regional nature of native art and the lack of nationwide focus, it is the state universities of the artist's home state who are most interested in collecting those stories. Mrs. Brown happens to be from Oklahoma and thus OU and OSU are most interested in her stories. While the original article did indeed focus heavily on a interview with Mrs. Brown, the article also included several books and newspaper articles, which conforms to Wikipedia's notability and proper source standards. The number of those secondary sources has since increased. Moreover, she has exhibited in several galleries, and so while she meets the lowest standard of notability, she is notable nonetheless. Though she has a common name and is not well known outside of Oklahoma, Joan Brown is a notable figure in the Oklahoma Native artist community and should not be excluded from Wikipedia for insignificant reasons. Yes, the author is trying to fill in the blanks of Native Artists in Oklahoma, however simply because these artists do not currently have Wikipedia pages does not mean they are insignificant. The goal of Wikipedia is to fill in those gaps and to easily share information with others. And many of the artists found in the Oklahoma Native Artists Project collection are indeed notable and found in many books, newspapers, and exhibition catalogs, which all meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. It is simply an issue of no one bothering to translate that information to Wikipedia until now. Claire.ringer ( talk) 22:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 00:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Essex 73's

Essex 73's (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All 900+ words are unverified to any reliable sources, failing the notability guideline for 14.55 years, now. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve. Every other team in the Provincial Junior Hockey League have articles. - SimonP ( talk) 19:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I've added some refs. A ProQuest search finds 3,700 articles on them, so plenty of reliable sources. - SimonP ( talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Now that is has SOME sources, I've removed anything else that wasn't cited (IAW the verifiability policy). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. You are thus removing your deletion request? - SimonP ( talk) 21:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I am not an administrator who has found a consensus that the page in question meets the notability guideline. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    But on a personal level, are you now supportive of the article remaining to get to that consensus? - SimonP ( talk) 21:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I personally wouldn't consider three local news reports over the span of 1.17 years to be significant coverage, but I of course support leaving this discussion open to allow other contributors to evaluate otherwise. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    You don't need an administrator's approval to retract your own AfD nomination. You can certainly do that yourself. Ravenswing 04:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, that's not what I meant to imply; I should have been more verbose. I want the discussion to run its course and attract as much attention as it deserves, obviously deferring to an administrator if they determine that consensus warrants early closure. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 07:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The team in question meets WP:GNG and there is room for improvement. A poorly written article is not grounds for deletion. Flibirigit ( talk) 16:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which was not the case upon nomination nor at this time. As for [a] poorly written article not being grounds for deletion, I have no objections to the demolition of that straw man. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. Also, mass deletion of unsourced info is bad etiquette per WP:POINT and is considered blanking. Consider inline source tags in the future please. DMighton ( talk) 16:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    The behavioral guideline on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point doesn't seem applicable based on a reading of that page. The verifiability policy says that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." There's currently a spate of activity in the article; when it's done, I'll again remove all unverified claims in the article in accordance with that policy. As for inline source tags, I have considered it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    And you will be reverted. Do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced. as per WP:POINT. DMighton ( talk) 17:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    I don't think you're reading those pages in their entirety.
    The verifiability policy says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." There are encouraged caveats, but they do not abrogate the wherewithal to remove any unverified material.
    The behavioral guideline on disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point says, "If you think someone unfairly removed "unsourced" content... do find a source for it, make the referencing clear if it was already present, or explain why the content in question shouldn't require a cited source. do not summarily remove from the page everything which appears to be unsourced." You quoted the third part, which depends upon the first, which isn't the matter at hand. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Thanks, I read just fine. Actually - it is the matter at hand. You were disruptively making a POINT. WP:POINT does not allow you mass blanking. You unfairly removed content, it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users.
    I would also like to point out that according to WP:BLANK, instead of the mass removal of information that you don't find adequate, list for deletion (which you did) - not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it. Also, WP:USI recommends that you ask for citations. Initially, you were WP:BOLD, but now that it was questioned... requesting citations is better etiquette. DMighton ( talk) 22:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    You were disruptively making a POINT. Given I'm wholly unaware of it, can you educate me as to what point I'm attempting to make by removing " [a]ny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it"? You unfairly removed content What exactly is "unfair" about removing claims that lacked sourcing, a process provided for by the verifiability policy. I didn't redact the page's history; it's all still there to be read and sourced if possible. […] it was reverted with the intent to source and request sourcing from other users. When it's challenged, unverified claims should only be reintroduced to an article with " an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." […] not list for deletion then start blanking to make a point of it. Again, I need your guidance on exactly what point I'm attempting to make. I removed the unverified claims from the article because they were unverified, not as an end-run attempt at manual deletion. As it stands, 81.92% of the prose is unequivocally unverified as required by policy, and—without regard to the outcome of this deletion discussion—if it continues to be so, I (or possibly anyone else) will remove it duly. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Look, I'm not looking for a pissing match - this is getting into the realm of TL;DR territory. I've told you my view and I believe you are wrong. It seems we will not be agreeing with each other and that is fine. The "disruption" and "unfairness" I see is you removing content that other people may have sourced if you had of actually gone to the bother of tagging as unsourced - that is my quibble. This impedes others from possibly rectifying the situation. Instead of allowing the AfD process to play out as it should, you started blanking content. As none of the content is controversial, I suggest you take a softer approach. From WP:VERIFY, In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.. As you say, 81.92% of this 900 word article is currently unverified by inline citation - that will take some time. Patience is a virtue. DMighton ( talk) 02:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    The situation was an article which lacked verification for most of its claims; I rectified that situation. The AFD process (this very page) is still proceeding as it should. Your suggestion has been seen. We have been patient for over fourteen and a half years. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The improvements are appreciated, and provide additional referenced support to clear that bar for me. I also see the original blanking attempt, which I just don't understand. The nominator then listed for AfD - why not go there in the first place if you knew how to do so? Lastly, as a member of a set of articles, this piece is a necessary piece of a larger puzzle.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    As far as I can tell from the page's history, it's never been blanked. I, the nominator, proposed the article for deletion because it'd never been sourced in its entire 14+ years; after Flibirigit ( talk · contribs) removed the {{ prod}} template, I brought it here. When SimonP ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) provided a few sources for the first time, and there was a legitimate aticle upon which to build, I removed everything else that was unsourced (in addition to other edits). My sequence of actions was PROD → AFD → V, none of which involved blanking.
    As for being "a member of a set of articles": I'm sorry, I honestly didn't know that such articles couldn't be deleted. What does that policy or guideline say, specifically, about my malfeasance? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • My apologies on the blanking accusation - not really sure what happened when I checked it and received a blank page, which now does not happen. Having said that, I am certainly not making any claims to malfeasance - but am simply stating that I much prefer to have an article relatively untouched for a fair evaluation at AfD. I do feel that if this article was deleted, the entire set about the teams in the league would be worse for it.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 19:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 04:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Dimagi

Dimagi (  | 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. WP:MILL. Fails WP:ORGCRITE, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. scope_creep Talk 01:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 02:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 14:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew nyr ( talk, contribs) 23:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
* https://money.cnn.com/2008/12/26/technology/mobile_health.fortune/ We're tackling problems that make economic sense and are something we care about and think we could make a big difference in," said CEO Jonathan Jackson Fails WP:ORGIND.
* Dead Link Dead link.
* Vikram Sheel Kumar: Software Design Kumar hopes that within five years Dimagi will have designed more open-source software that, like the Zambia application, can be adapted for use worldwide. Fails WP:ORGIND.
* Company site
* [34] Dead link. An event listing.
* [35] Dead link
* [36] Malware page
* [37] Dead link
* [38] Genuine ref.
* Optimizing Network Connectivity for Mobile Health Technologies in sub-Saharan Africa A paper written by a Dimagi employee. Doesn't establish notability.

I don't think there is sufficient references to support it. Their app works in 80 countries, so there must be some coverage. It think if it is found found notable, it should draftified until it is improved. scope_creep Talk 09:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some discussion now of draftification, so giving this a third relist to see if a consensus can be formed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Please see this 36-page paper by the World Bank, which could literally be used to cover all of this article in references. The paper contains 2 pages of its own references. As far as I am concerned, this resource by itself covers all concerns. Having said that, there are 980 hits when searching Google Scholar, and a number of those lead to citations referencing the subject in scholarly journals.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 19:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree with Concertmusic, the significant coverage is out there (even if its not in the article) based on a search of Google Scholar. I don't personally think the article is in that bad of shape such that it needs to be moved to draft, but I also wouldn't oppose that. Regardless, I don't think it should be deleted on notability grounds. DocFreeman24 ( talk) 01:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
They're fat reports all right, no doubt. I think I'm ready to bale out. Do you fancy updating the article @ Concertmusic:. I will get rid of the old references that have been identified as true junk. Nomination withdrawn scope_creep Talk 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I've taken out three dead refs + a malware page ref. scope_creep Talk 14:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I'll take a look in the next 1-2 days to add the sources where appropriate. Thank you!-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:29, 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 no consensus. The discussion has been a bit of a mess, but trends towards keeping if anything. Sandstein 11:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Rio Monterroso Culvert

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG / WP:NBUILD. Per the creator's own admission, there are no references to be found, and at least some of the content is their own WP:OR. (There is, admittedly, one RS cited, but it relates only indirectly to the subject matter, and doesn't even mention the culvert in question.) Has been draftified and rejected at AfC multiple times, but the creator insists on publishing it. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

It is noted that the Monterroso river was recognised by its town as “the most important river in estepona” and did stand out hugely in Estepona’s town before being culverted however, due to its situation,lack of geological information and the culverts physical shape (tourists suspect a random tunnel in the middle of a beach is sewerage) most tourists do not recognise that it is a natural geological river. I am aware that the lack of encouragement to study and explore this rivers history results in a lack of citational information that exists, or official sources that have been destroyed by age due to the fact that the culvert is extremely old. There are very few youtube videos on this subject however one that may be a reliable source shows the culvert being measured on google maps. There was a info bar on the video where all google earth graphic visuals are credited, The bar notes Geogr. Nacional, Landsat / Copernicus, Data SIO, NOAA, U.S. Navy, NGA and GEBCO. I have taken into note that the citations on the subject has basically become so old that they don’t exist anymore. The Wikipedia article was created to raise awareness about the subject so that it does not drive away tourism and that it is not a wastewater plant, it was a natural river course once. It was also created to educate people around the world about the large culvert system. I personally think that with corrections and many more changes to the article, which may eventually cause it to become fit for purpose, that the article should not be deleted currently. Thank you Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 12:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Most of the sources cited in this article are Google Maps or images (not all of which are working properly); the only textual source cited is a newspaper article which is only seven sentences long. For some reason, this article begins, "This article has been extremely hard to find citations for. Most citational materials or people involved with the subject of this article has either been destroyed by age or passed away." The culvert in question wasn't built in ancient times -- according to this article, it was built between 1965 and 1973. Or, in other words, it was completed during the adult lives of many people still living. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Other than semi working google links there is not much citations or information in the river or culvert. When I started studying the culvert 2 years I personally thought it was a storm drain, I did not know anything about the fact that it was/is a river. Once I found out that it was a river by tracking along the road and found the inlet of the culvert, Googling its name came up with absolutely nothing other than several websites about them attempting to troubleshoot its wastewater problem. There still is today almost no citations to look for on the web that are worthy for use on the article. I am now currently deflated of all citations and ideas other than adding a statement noting about the lack of citations, or to keep on searching for citations or adding the photos that was linked, directly into the Wikipedia article without needing to press on intermittent links May have a chance. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Not all published sources are online. Some might be available in printed newspapers or books that are not available online. But there have to be published sources to support the facts in an article; if there aren't published sources, the article isn't verifiable and shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • keep The Burj Khalifa is also a general concrete structure yet it is noted as currently the largest building currently existing at 828 metres high. The monterroso culvert is measured at 1,160 metres long which is a 332 metre difference. It is certainly not the longest concrete structure ever built however it is certainly a candidate for longest and/or largest concrete box culvert ever created. It would be a lot easier if there is some type of database that people can compare concrete culverts to. The main goal here is to get some type of citation or data. Other than in person making a video with a measurement tape get there’s not much on the monterroso river culvert. What makes the situation worse is that I do not know Spanish. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 18:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep and recast as an article about Rio/Arroyo Monterroso generally. I imagine that sources about this river/culvert exist offline (e.g. Spanish newspaper archives), but I don't have access to them. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I recast the article to be about the river and am now !voting keep. I think there is enough information about the river generally, and if Ekec... can find enough reliable sources to write about the culvert, perhaps that could be be broken out eventually. But at this point I don't think it a separate culvert-specific article is appropriate, given that there isn't much reliably sourced information about the culvert specifically. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 20:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Facebook is absolutely packed with citations about the river monterroso culvert and the river itself, but I don’t think that Wikipedia accepts Facebook cites. however, A portion of the posts are photos that may possess the correct cite worthy information. There is also a book called “Aqua Nostra” [1] That note water related things in Andalusia, Page 120-121 in that book notes about the river monterroso. There also is a website citing about the river monterroso’s history [2] It also notes something about when the river monterroso culvert was in its final construction (1972-1973) Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 19:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank You Calliopejen1. You may have saved the article from potential deletion. In the far future I may add small amounts of photos of the monterroso culvert but not claim anything except depicting the photo. Hopefully a administrator will close the AFD soon and potentially retract its deletion.


    • Keep The river itself is a lot less notable than about the culvert itself. My personal choice is to see what happens to the article. Due to the fact it’s my first article I have a extremely limited knowledge about how to make the article better however other people may vary. At this point I personally think that the delete notice should be removed because it is no longer in as much of serious state as it was. After all
—-> the main reason the delete notice was raised was due to the lack of citations which have been sorted out<—-

I still agree that the article is a mess but can’t find the solution to make it “look” better. Feel free to alter its layout but refrain from removing information. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 16:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply

You have already voted. You only get one vote. Spiderone 20:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I have tested the article out on the web and I agree that the article looks extremely messy. Edit: I have now fixed the photo positions for people who view the article on the web. Hopefully it doesn’t look as messy as it was before. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 21:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I am a anonymous user just browsing through Wikipedia and I don’t think the article should be deleted. A few days ago the article looked horrible but I am pleased to say it looks great now. I am on the side of the defendant. The article now looks too good to be drafted or deleted. My vote is now

  • keep

I heavily recommend people in charge of Wikipedia should retract the deletion leave the article standing. 2A02:C7F:7282:1100:5D48:1238:1CE:DC10 ( talk) 23:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — 2A02:C7F:7282:1100:5D48:1238:1CE:DC10 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

  • keep

The article deletion was raised due to the reasons noted in the first paragraph at the top of this aFd page. Currently the paragraphs have been met and I have included the main thing that the article needed, citations. The notability level now is at least decent. I now feel confident that the aFd now has authority to be ended. I am also confident that it now follows wikipedia guidelines. Thank you Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 11:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

You have already voted. You only get one vote. Spiderone 20:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Making the article about river itself will not be very intriguing and will probably fail the test for Wikipedia’s notability. This is why I kept on making the article centred around the culvert itself. However if there is a way to change the title of the article from “River Monterroso culvert” to —-> “River Monterroso” I’m sure that the article will look good with its existing content and with more content about the river made more prominent. As a first time Wikipedia article creator I do not have much experience on telling what part of the article needs to be improved however this is why feel free to improve the layout of the article but feel to refrain on removing existing information without my consultation Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 20:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 

  I have decided to abandon this article and copy the exact content to a New article solely because

Of the articles name was not very good. The new article is River Monterroso Anyone can change this article to redirect to the “new” article if wanted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

As the article is now about The river monterroso including its culvert,

it most likely passes a notability test, as possessing as many rights as an article about a river has.

I have seen articles on other rivers that aren’t famous and they all have things in common

. A river infobox<——

. Well separated paragraphs <——

. And well cited <——

These are the things that I will get to work on Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 21:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://issuu.com/aytomarbella/docs/exposicion_agua/120
  2. ^ http://vistasdeayeryhoy.blogspot.com/2011/09/avenida-de-espanario-monterroso.html
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is a bit of a mess, but the article has been changed substantially during the AfD, and so discussion of how it stands presently would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 20:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've already cast my ballot and, having read the article again, I stand by it; hence just a comment. I repeat my earlier view that this article should be about the river, with the culvert section bolted on, rather than the confusion it currently is. I also think the references are still weak, once you remove the Google Maps and blogs etc. That said, it is much better now than it was nine days ago when I first came across it. And the passion behind the advocacy is jaw-dropping. :) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 12:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Move to Rio Monterroso. Geographic features are generally notable if verifiable and you can write something about them other than a statistic, and I think that's what we have here - the culvert itself isn't notable, but it's been discussed enough that the river that has been culverted, albeit short, passes I think it's WP:GEOFEAT. What a messy AfD! SportingFlyer T· C 01:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

searching the web for the “worlds largest culvert” results come up as all corrugated steels most likely because they weighs a lot less than concrete. All mostly 20 to 200 metres in length. in the river monterroso culvert, It has a span of a confirmed 1.16km long. 

Another result is of Alaskan highway culvert that was corrugated steel pipe that was installed in 1998. And collapsed just 2 years after its installation, the website is 
https://www.concretepipe.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ysk122.pdf and claims that it created “the mother of all potholes”. The sinkhole looks about 100 metres  smaller than the 700 square metre sinkhole of the monterroso. A peice of the pdf touts it to be “the largest construction project in the history of its kind”.

The fact that the river monterroso culvert predates the Alaskan culvert by 25 years, and that the length of the Alaskan culvert at 35 metres long compared to the river monterroso culvert at 1,160 metres long the monterroso culvert may have peaked as the largest culvert in the world for several years if it isn’t by the president day. That potential fact alone could be a reason for its notability. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk) 20:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Draftify and move to Rio Monterroso - the topic as a river seems to meet notability guidelines at WP:GEOLANDS, though I'm still skeptical that the topic meets notability guidelines as a culvert. In either case, I agree with Robert McClenon that the article is still a mess. Much of it is unverifiable original research, which should be cleaned up before being published in mainspace. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Move to Rio Monterroso. I second (or third) SportingFlyer and Coolabahapple above. The AfD is a big mess, and the article also needs some attention, but the author(s) have really given it a good shot to make serious and requested improvements. I would hate to simply dump the honest effort made.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 19:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply


I think There should be a Spanish version of this article when i am certain that it qualifies for Wikipedia but that is in the future, and if Rio Monterroso is thinking of being used then first there should open a debate wether the Monterroso is an “Arroyo” or “Rio”.

“Arroyo” means stream when translated to English and “Rio” means river when translated into English. In the summer it is an arroyo and just trickles out. and in the flood months it is a raging river.


However I have seen where the riverbed is dry in the inlet of the culvert, and where 1.16km south of the same culvert, the water is flooding out on the beach On the outfall of the culvert. An example is on google earth/maps where the inlet [1] Is completely dry and the outfall directly south [2] Is completed wet and flowing with water due to the shear amount of pipes and inlets that flow in. including the Juan Benítez culvert that has a pipe within it that always discharges freshwater. The pipe in their ramps on and off and the flow on the beach is seen changing speed with the pipe in the Juan Benítez culvert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 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) 21:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Adesua Dozie

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

Although as at the time this article is being nominated for deletion there are no sources present in the article, a before search did show this, which appears to be written by a guest editor, this which appears to be a promotional sponsored post & this which appears to be a mere announcement. In all, I do not see WP:GNG satisfied as subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 19:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

This article has been significantly improved with the addition of credible independent sources. this is in addition to the several in line link that has now been added to the article. The article therefore meets Wikipedia's policy of verifiability and Notability. I therefore vote for keep. Omorodion1 ( talk) 21:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Comment — The editor above @ Omorodion1, is the article creator.
I have analyzed most of the sources used in the article already in my opening AFD rationale, your two new inclusions appear to be this(which is an interview thus isn't independent of her) & this which is a list article with very short biographies affixed to each entry, this doesn’t adhere to WP:SIGCOV & of no value to WP:GNG which requires significant coverage. How else might I explain to you that this subject isn’t notable just yet? If you want me to create a table I honestly would. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Peggy Rae Sapienza

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

Questionable notability in spite of long list of references, many of which seem tangential or indirect, and most don't appear to establish notability. Large sections of unsourced text make it problematic to further verify notability. If subject is indeed notable and article kept, this thing needs serious cleanup and better sourcing. Mansheimer ( talk) 16:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am disputing the call for deletion of this article. You have noted that there are plenty of references, you feel that not enough are direct, and too many are tangential: I disagree. I see the Wiki terms of keeping or not keeping an article 'some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." This article interests some people, specifically those who are involved in Science Fiction and Science Fiction Conventions. I don't see the large blocks of unsourced text that you refer to - perhaps there are a few bits here and there, but to characterize them as large blocks is a bit extreme. If you want to mark for clean-up that might be more appropriate, but even then I think that is pushing it a bit. Riverpa ( talk) 03:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Peggy Rae was a very important figure in the field of sf fandom, especially in the USA. This particular article has some 20 references to her career in the field, covering all aspects of her life which in itself should qualify her for inclusion. References are only tangential if the reader either disagrees with them or doesn't understand their significance. The article currently only shows one "citation required" flag which indicates a small cleanup rather than a full deletion. Perry Middlemiss ( talk) 01:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this needs clean-up and improvements in tone, references, etc. But this nomination is an example of substituting AfD for improvement. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems adequate sourcing already in the article to meet the general notability guideline. Camille Bacon-Smith's work on fandom is considered reliable in the academic community; she interviews Rae in Science Fiction Culture and later refers to her as a "highly expert" con organizer. [39]. Espresso Addict ( talk) 14:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Georgia

History of rugby union matches between Ireland and Georgia (  | 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 seem to yet meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. No prejudice against recreating the article if their rivalry does gain a bit more attention later (incidentally, these two are due to meet for a fifth time later this month). Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keeping -

On a related note (this has nothing to do with my closure, however) - one of my first punk rock tapes was a Blatz tape. Missvain ( talk) 20:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Robert Eggplant

Robert Eggplant (  | 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 subject, no reliable secondary sources. Mansheimer ( talk) 15:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 20:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Gary Pig Gold

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

Questionable notability, only one citation provided, appears to be a vanity page. Mansheimer ( talk) 15:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

History of rugby union matches between Scotland and Georgia

History of rugby union matches between Scotland and Georgia (  | 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 seem to yet meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. No prejudice against recreating the article if their rivalry does gain a bit more attention later. Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 17:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte ( talk) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

History of rugby union matches between England and Japan

History of rugby union matches between England and Japan (  | 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 seem to meet WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG; there do not seem to be many reliable sources discussing the rivalry between these two nations in any depth. These countries are both High Performance Unions but I don't believe that this article should be exempt from meeting GNG. Also appears to be a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 19:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Sepy Dobronyi

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

Longstanding article with some notability which I would prefer have the community weigh in on rather than swing the axe (scythe?) myself. TomStar81 ( Talk) 12:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - No actual WP:DELREASON has been stated. Most of the sourcing in the article (which is plentiful) is offline. All I can do is assume good faith that the sourcing was actually as presented by the person who added it and as such would support notability. Even if not I think this is at the very least a WP:BASIC pass per these sources - 1 2 3. Dobronyi is notable as a well-known playboy with at least two major incidents of notability (the dispute over his making of a nude statue of a Hollywood star, the auctioning of Queen Elizabeth II's under wear) and probably many others. FOARP ( talk) 15:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • G11 is a speed deletion tag and clearly this is not an article that should be speedily deleted. Like G11 says, "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion". Clearly this is a notable subject at least on WP:BASIC grounds. To be honest I think a lot people are being way too trigger-happy with WP:PROD, and articles that are eminently saveable, or not even particularly problematic, are being deleted as a result. FOARP ( talk) 08:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Question. I don't understand the rationale here. Does "swing the axe" mean "stubbify" or "overhaul"? Like FOARP, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the many offline sources listed, so if there's no problem with notability or verifiability, why are we at AfD? AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 16:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ AleatoryPonderings: Swinging the axe means deleting it outright. I can swing that axe on my own authority, but in this case I want the community to weigh in on the matter before I delete the article because I don't see a clear cut case here for G11. If the community feels it should be deleted, then the axe is swung and the article dies, otherwise it stays where it is and someone who gives a damn about it can fix it up. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This "artist" gets 0 hits on JSTOR, and a 5 on scholar, and looks like no critical piece on his "art", so one might argue he is not notable enough for his "art" (sculpture, jewelry, photo).
However, other people e.g. book illustrators tend to get this sort of silent treatment, and that should not automatically establish non-notability, IMO.
The subject is evidently a fixture in the cultural scene in Miami, with other former Cuba inhabitants like Ernest Hemingway in the mix. Consequently he has sculpted/photo'd some actors and sold a strand to Mrs. Hemingway, which is written up about in some mags and books, and this seems sufficiently WP:GNG. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 18:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per discussion. The page seems well sourced. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • per The Miami Herald: "Any recounting of his history must carry a disclaimer: The only person who could separate fact from fiction in his colorful life died of liver cancer just after midnight May 29 at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach". We have very good reasons to be skeptical about the veracity of this article. Vexations ( talk) 13:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Veracity or not of various incidents of his life is a page-quality issue, similar to that of any other notable fabulist or charlatan. Simply stating the points of his life over which there was some doubt (i.e., the queen has not acknowledged that the underwear sold were actually hers) is sufficient, but that claims he made about his life are verifiable as claims, we need not state whether his claims were true or not. Still a WP:V, WP:GNG pass. FOARP ( talk) 20:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I did a bunch of cleanup before I finally gave up and G11d the article. For reference, it previously looked like this, and included gems like and royal crown jeweler,[3] aristocrat, art collector, world traveler, movie maker, pilot, wine collector, sportsman, playboy, and bon vivant. I decided to attempt a (risky) speedy because I realised that while the promotional content may be removable, the fundamental issues this article has cannot be addressed without a full rewrite. It has been cultivated by a single SPA for years, and while concerns about serious reliability issues were raised in 2011, an IP (likely the principal author) removed the objections and carried on. encountered copyright violations, unreliable sources, and a bunch of highly questionable claims (see the page history to see my attempts at cleanup). The article makes a number of exceptional claims and backs them up with sources that are questionable at best, including various editions of playboy). It reads, in essence, like a movie plot, and I get the feeling that that is what it actually is. I recommend reading the pre-cleanup version in full; it makes so many incredible claims that I came to the conclusion that nothing in this article should be taken at face value, simply because it all seems massively over-exaggerated. I have no confidence in any information included in it. Hence delete for the sake of being a reliable encyclopaedia and per WP:TNT Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    To clarify: Pre-cleanup, the article claimed, among other things, that the subject was one of six pilots chosen to try out the world's first Rocket-powered aircraft., was shot down in his aircraft and captured by the Russians and being held in prison in occupied Hungary but managed to escape in one day and immediately returned to Budapest, spoke six languages, walked from Budapest to Sweden through occupied territory (despite the chronology implying that this was post-war), designed a brooch for Queen Elizabeth's wedding, then went to Caracas with only $150.00, his suitcase and the suit on his back, where his art studio became a mecca for various celebrities. Skipping half the page, we then find claims that he traveled to 89 countries, climbed mount Kilimanjaro and the Matterhorn, was injured by an arrow to his leg while being in New Guinea to to observe a primitive tribal war, only to recover within three days with the help of the natives, shot a lion that was charging at him, etc. etc. I have little faith in the credibility of the article. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Oh, I also forgot this subtle wink: Dobronyi's trademark while living in Cuba, was a pocket full of shark's teeth which he passed out to the girls of his choice.[21] Over 600 females are a member of the Shark tooth club.[12], as well as that he was the one person in Cuba who put shirts on artists' backs and bankbooks in their pocket for the first time in the island's history. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You're trying to argue WP:TNT here but clearly the article is saveable - just delete the WP:PROMO stuff. The subject is clearly notable based simply on the obituary references. If an editor is being permanently disruptive then WP:ANI them. His claims about himself being dubious is not an issue (we cover fiction on Wiki) so long as their dubiousness is also highlighted and they are described as claims, not stated as facts. Speedy is most definitely not supposed to be used for cases like this - it is not simply a nuke button that you can press to avoid the hard work of editing. FOARP ( talk) 08:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I agree with FOARP that Blablubbs should deal with editing issues by methods other than total annihilation (deletion).
You don't need to get so compulsive-obsessive about purging every claim either.
As an example, Yul Brynner article retains discussion of his (fictitious) Romani descent claim.
And non-outlandish claims like having "only $150.00" as an escapee, you can let slide.
Also a false perception of anachronism, bcz nothing strange about difficulty in getting visas to a (formerly) occupied state in the immediate post-war months. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 13:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Kiyoweap, I'll reply to the rest of the arguments brought forth by you and FOARP later, just noting that I don't appreciate the suggestion that someone who holds an opposing viewpoint must be mentally unwell, nor the insinuation that I am merely being lazy here. Also dropping Special:Diff/987360955 here to support my argument about the doubtful reliability of the article, even when it comes to claims that are apparently sourced. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, well, I admit I am not a psychiatrist, so maybe I should have avoided a clinical term, but the point is Wikipedia rules as per WP:PRIMARYCARE do not endorse an editor rejecting every self-made claim, and even allows those found in his own autobiography, provided it is non-controversial. Your criterion seems to be that you feel entitled to remove a non-controversial self-made claim even if it is from a secondary source, and I'm asserting that you are over-reaching.
The statement of having $150 on one's person as a refugee, might be controversial in your assessment, but thousands if not millions of refugees have a similar experience to tell with no way to substantiate if that was the actual sum on money they had on them. -- Kiyoweap ( talk) 13:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I am not here to litigate specific claims made in the article. The problem is that the text makes no indication of whether these are claims or presented as fact by the sources; did he claim or was he one of the first pilots of rocket-powered aircraft? It is likely that some of the claims presented are true, it is likely that some aren't; but given the quality, appropriateness concerns (see Diff above) and inaccessibility of the sources (I doubt anyone will be able to find many 1962 issues of "Today. ME- and the Gold-Plated Girls", which is the source for that specific claim), we would essentially have to hat half the article with "the following may or may not be true". Alternatively, we could be left with a two-sentence stub. So yes, I think WP:TNT applies here.
And no, you shouldn't have used the clinical term regardless of your professional background. And if you feel that my edits are a sign of "entitlement", you can follow BRD and revert them all. Twinkle has a great function for that. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seems notable, although COI applies, as it was written by Sepy1031, and his Wiki activity revolved around Sepy's page only. (Tho' it couldn't be him, since the article was written in 2011, and Sepy died in 2010. Most likely one of his fans or someone among those lines must've written it.) GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 15:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm frankly surprised that this should require any further discussion, after the opinions above were virtually unanimously for keeping the article, except for the dissenting opinion of the initiator of the deletion request. In any case, the presented reasoning for deletion is without merit. More so, I believe that following up with deleting this article, essentially based on the gut feeling of one user, would set a dangerous precedent, which would potentially give way to deletion discussions for virtually any article on topics pertaining to history, which by definition will contain facts that may not be verifiable any longer, since the witnesses or records are most often not readily accessible anymore. What is important to be understood is that this is part of the fundamental nature of the matter of authoring of texts on the subject of history and biographical material on subjects which are no longer around. In general, the discussion has yet to bring forward a valid reason for deletion. One, the notability of the subject of the article has not been questioned. And two, the article generally does well (where it can) by being adequately sourced and this has not been questioned either. Much rather, part of the discussion here seems to be related to the nature of the claims presented in the sources themselves (of which many are tabloid newspapers). While many of the claims on the subject's life presented in these sources may be impossible for us to verify, this circumstance is not of relevance to this article itself. This is because the fact that these stories on the subject‘s life were widely publicized, found widespread attention and became part of public canon (even if mostly geograhically restrained to parts of Florida), makes them historically relevant and thus worth preserving. Even if the article is deleted, the fact that the stories were widely published (and read) will never be reversed. The stories themselves that this article references are by now of public relevance, because they have shaped an enduring image of a notable subject, whether verifiable or not. The article in itself is valuable in collecting the publicly available information of the subject, which would otherwise remain scattered across archives. TwentyEightyFour ( talk) 18:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC) — TwentyEightyFour ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep but stubify. This could be cut down to a couple paragraphs. It is chock full of trivia at the moment. Possibly ( talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I second the lengthy and thoughtful comment by TwentyEightyFour. The article is well-referenced and supported, and I am puzzled by the desire to delete good encyclopedic information.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 20:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Atlet AB

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

Entirely unsourced company page, fails to prove it's notability. Can't find anything significant about them after a quick search, so likely fails WP:NCORP. — moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Atlet has a long history as a major company within its niche. There was a source in the article – the book Atlet: 1958–2006 by Henrik Moberger, who has written several other books about Swedish companies, but it was self-published. However, plenty of non-trivial coverage about the company in Swedish newspapers (not available through a normal search, but through paywalled newspaper archives). I've added three. / Julle ( talk) 00:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 04:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Since there have been two relists and no reliable sources, I think we're done here. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Babilon be salon

Babilon be salon (  | 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 notability guidelines. Sources in the article are Facebook posts. BEFORE showed nothing (under Babilon be salon, ባቢሎን በሳሎን, or Babylon in the living room) that meets WP:RS WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.   //  Timothy ::  talk  02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions.   //  Timothy ::  talk  02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only reference is the Ethiopian National Theatre's Facebook page, which contains only a one-line notice for the play. None of the content is coherent. Nothing would be lost by deleting this. I doubt there is anything notable here, and even if there is, it should be started again from scratch. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 06:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This only appears to give it a passing mention and the other sources all look completely unreliable, especially the mp3 download one Spiderone 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reply

Dear User:Spiderone, for you do not understand Amharic, it doesn't mean the sources are 'unreliable'. But to make clear for others:

  1. The first, which has a full information about the genre, running time, writer, actors and so on, and second, which clearly inform when the Babilon be salon return to the stage, citations are directly from Ethiopian National Theater's official Facebook page.
  2. The third citation is about the participated actors. For instance, actors mentioned here: አለማየሁ ታደሰ or Alemayehu Tadesse, ፍቃዱ ከበደ or Fikadu Kebede and others.
  3. The fourth describe about the Babilon be salon's popularity all over the country.
  4. The rest one, the fifth and sixth, are the audio and video direct reference.

After all these, if you believe it should not be on Wikipedia, do your pleasure. - Yitbe, 06:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply

So that means only the fourth source gives any indication of notability. Anyone can make a Facebook page about anything. The third source focuses on the actors rather than the drama itself. The fifth link is an mp3 download and the sixth is basically a YouTube video. Spiderone 16:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – bradv 🍁 03:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Questionable notability, was nominated once before and consensus was to delete. A lot of references are shown, but these are for artists rather than the gallery itself (which is itself misleading and possibly a bad faith effort to make it appear that there is plenty of coverage of the actual gallery when there really isn't). There doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable secondary sources and possibly not enough to justify an article. At best, this is going to be stuck as a stub. Mansheimer ( talk) 11:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 12:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Previous discussions: 2013-05 ✗ delete
Logs: 2013-05 ✗ deleted, 2013-05 ✗ G11, 2013-05 ✗ deleted, 2013-05 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article has been refbombed, the list of references is currently larger than the text of the article, most of which are not relevant to the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, either relying on coverage of exhibitions or artists (failing CORPDEPTH), mentions in passing or Primary and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/ WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 19:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I went through all the sources to see if there was any material about the gallery beyond a mere mention. This is what I found: [46] SEAN HORTON (presents)
    [47] nothing
    [48] we hope to get there sometime this week to open Community Action Center @ Horton Gallery.
    https://observer.com/2011/06/l-e-s-gallery-expands-to-berlin/ - 100% about subject
    [49] dead link
    [50] “Sun Screen,” an exhibition of Tichý’s work, is on view until September 10, 2011 at the Horton Gallery in New York City.
    [51] nothing
    [52] dead link
    [53] nothing
    [54] Horton Gallery, 504 West 22nd Street
    [55] nothing
    [56] nothing
    [57] nothing
    [58] In his New York solo debut at the recently opened gallery Horton & Liu, Michael Berryhill does both.
    [59] dead link
    [60]dead link
    [61] Kirk Hayes’s paintings at Horton Gallery occupy a realm somewhere between the trompe-l’œil earnestness of William Harnett’s hyperrealistically rendered sheets of paper in The Artist’s Letter Rack (1879) and the tragicomic sumptuousness of the bulbous-headed smoker lying about in Philip Guston’s 1973 Stationary Figure (both pictures are on view at the Met).
    [62] nothing
    [63] Touch’d Lustre, Grill’s first show at Zieher Smith & Horton, presents eight oil-on-linen paintings, all completed in 2015.
    [64] Zieher Smith & Horton in Chelsea is now showing nine of her contemplative abstract paintings, medium-scale works with floaty, interwoven patterns, shapes and marks in palettes that range from misty pale greens and lemon yellows to pulsing reds.
    [65] The title of Zieher Smith & Horton’s two-man exhibition of David Byrd and Peter Gallo, “The Patients and the Doctors,” is taken from a fiery 1947 work by the poet-mental patient Antonin Artaud.
    [66] nothing
    [67] Zieher Smith & Horton 516 West 20th Street
    [68] Horton & Company 504 West 22nd Street, Chelsea
    [69] The galleries Zieher Smith and Sean Horton joined forces last year, doubling their abilities to find young or underexposed talent.
    [70] Along with Canada, Sean Horton has earned his place as a poster boy for the Lower East Side gallery movement. After some time spent in Boston, where we first met, Sean went to New York and worked with Nick Lawrence before opening Horton Gallery. Sean loves painting, and he has an extraordinary eye for picking emerging talent. His star, Keltie Ferris, may have left recently, but his program continues to be one of the freshest in New York.
    [71] C. Sean Horton, a founder of Chelsea’s Freight and Volume gallery, opened his own shop last fall.
    [72] The gallery, which, according to its owner, Clayton Sean Horton, focuses on “periphery” and “overlooked” artists, has been open since October 2006. Its current exhibition focuses on Royal Robertson, a Louisiana folk artist who died in 1997, and Hilary Baldwin, a New York sculptor. Never heard of them? Exactly.
    There is just the article in the Observer that is actually about the subject, but that's one source. Vexations ( talk) 21:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Yup, except the Observer reference is an announcement by the owner, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing ++ 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is too little to say about this person to keep or even merge. Sandstein 12:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Faustus Cornelius Sulla (grandson of Sulla)

Faustus Cornelius Sulla (grandson of Sulla) (  | 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 presents two sources on this subject: the first contains a passage which says his father (also called Faustus) had children, and the second merely says that his father had descendants. No evidence is anywhere presented for the existence of a son called "Faustus", and, as it stands, there's no good reason to believe this specific individual even exists. I was unable to find anything in reliable sources that would prove otherwise. If he does somehow exist, then he fails Wikipedia's notability standards, since nothing of his life is known, by the article's own admission. Avis11 ( talk) 15:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

I'll add that this article was created by an IP ( back in 2005) with what seems to be a mass of unsourced fabrications. Discussions on the talk page throughout the years have since led to the elimination of all the original content and caused the article to shrink to its current size. Avis11 ( talk) 15:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete On the one hand a Cornelius Sulla, grandson of Sulla, did exist. Ronald Syme (The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford: 1986), pp. 261 & 265) mentions him twice. However, he is nothing more than a genealogical link between one notable person (Sulla) & a pair of other notable men (the Cornelii Sullae who were consuls in 31 & 33); more could be said about his son, Sulla Felix, who is at best borderline notable. (An argument could be made for Sulla Felix, but I wouldn't be convinced by it.) Most importantly, notability is not inherited: his strongest claim for notability otherwise is that he might have been a member of the Roman Senate. (Augustus twice purged the Roman Senate to reduce its numbers from over 1,000 to 600 members; this Cornelius Sulla might have been expelled at one of those times. We have no way to know.)
    As a last note, I considered the option of "Merge", but there is nothing here to merge. And I tried to find a way to do just that: the easiest explanation for how the two consular Cornelii Sullae are related to their famous ancestor is to say "direct descendant" thru their father; it would be awkward & pointless to mention this person in their articles. -- llywrch ( talk) 01:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Essential just a name in an ancient genealogy. We know too little about this fellow to write an actual article about him. GNG is not met. Hog Farm Bacon 02:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. That he existed seems certain enough, but absent substantial scholarly writing about him (even an investigation of who he was), there's no need for him to have an article of his own; he can rest comfortably at "Cornelia gens", surrounded by his family, and mentioned as appropriate in the articles about his notable immediate relatives. I don't know what the basis for his praenomen is, other than a generally unwarranted assumption that he would have had the same praenomen as his father. While this would have been the case more often than not, the meagre epigraphic evidence doesn't support it as far as I know. If the filiations of his presumed descendants are correct, his name was probably Publius. Which is not to say that there couldn't have been a son Faustus—but lacking more evidence, clearly-stated scholarly opinion, or even proof of how the supposed grandsons were related to him, I'd call it a stretch. P Aculeius ( talk) 14:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • As a post script, I'd like to point out that the Italian Classicist Borghesi argued that the grandfather of the Cornelius Sulla, consul 33, was Lucius Cornelius Sulla; first Groag then Syme argued (more persuasively) for the existence of Cornelius Sulla. So one could argue the existence of Cornelius Sulla is not rock solid. (IMHO, I beleive Groag & Syme are closer to the truth.) -- llywrch ( talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to his father or grandfather. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No valid reason for deletion presented. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 17:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Presidency of Ilham Aliyev

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

I suggest this article is deleted because all the content is also covered in Ilham Aliyev, which covers his presidency in greater detail and is updated regularly . Kevo327 ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kevo327 ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Kevo327 ( talk) 14:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that the subject is notable per the WP:NPROF guideline. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 17:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Robert Slavin

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

Not a single source to be found to establish notability; article has notable NPOV issues. Megaman en m ( talk) 14:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megaman en m ( talk) 14:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Rhys Lewis (musician)

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

The musician seem to be WP:TOOSOON and not meeting WP:MUSICBIO strictly. Considering it as a borderline case. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

"Withdrawn by nominator" per the comments and votes below. --☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 20:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Katy Woolley

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

Fails GNG, WP:MUSICBIO Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep has reliable sources coverage such as the BBC, Financial Times and others and is a professor at The Royal Academy of Music, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, though it's a little hard to say. However, I think there is a bit of an issue with WP:MUSICBIO with notability for musicians from multiple highly prestigious orchestras. I would otherwise suggest a merge, but to which orchestra's page? Or to the university's? This is certainly a stub, and will likely stay that way for a while, but obviously the article was created for a reason. Hsplus ( talk) 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In the world of classical music, in my mind she is notable by both chair occupied and orchestra she is associated with. The article is well supported by reliable sources. A good encyclopedia article on a rising star in her field.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 14:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Enough on-line presence in reputable places to support keeping the article on wikipedia. Kolma8 ( talk) 18:26, 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. – bradv 🍁 03:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Nakala

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

Fails GNG. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 13:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad#Death. Consensus to cover the death at the main article, rather than a standalone page. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 17:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Death of Promised Messiah

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

This is basically a pointless fork of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is certainly notable, but his death doesn't require a separate article. PepperBeast (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Feel free to discuss merging via the article. Missvain ( talk) 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Arnaud Vaissié

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

Fails WP:GNG if there are multiple independent reliable sources they haven't been cited here and the Telegraph interview is WP:PRIMARY as far as I can see he's just another run of the mill business person. Ch1p the chop ( talk) 12:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 20:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

M3NSA

M3NSA (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. They do not satisfy either WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. The three sources used in the article are all unreliable in this context as both this & this appear to be interviews hence aren’t independent of him thus doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG & this is user generated thus very unreliable. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment — the Fader.com source is an interview hence isn’t independent of the subject thus is of no value to WP:GNG whilst this Modern Ghana source merely name drops him amongst three other artists who were nominated for the award of which he didn’t win, WP:MUSICBIO requires the individual to have been nominated for a prominent award and MOBO awards isn’t that award & Apparently he was dropped from the nominees. Lastly please do not use pulse.com.gh as a reliable source to substantiate anything as they are not a reliable source, an example of their ineptitude is nonsense like this they publish. I have removed all pulse.com.gh sources used in the article as they clearly aren’t a serious or reliable source with reputation for fact checking. Please do not re-add them. Celestina007 ( talk) 04:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply

*Keep more references have been added from sources independent of the subject. Kinvidia ( talk) 00:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC) struck second vote, Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep does have a staff written AllMusic bio already in the article and coverage in reliable sources such as Fader. I don't understand what was going on with the MOBOs but they are a big deal in the UK, imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Good improvements made after listing for AfD, especially the BBC News reference. Also, as I have written many times before, I really don't agree with the nominator making numerous changes after the article has been listed - I would much prefer to let the community do its review on the article as it was at time on nomination.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 15:30, 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. – bradv 🍁 03:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Jérémy Lenaerts

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

I prodded this with the same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hayden (rugby union) and dozens of other recent AFDs, which was: Player does not qualify for WP:NRU (Major League Rugby is not a notable league under WP:NRU), only brief mentions and news of him signing for sides so does not qualify for WP:GNG either. It was deprodded due to him playing in the French Second Division, but it turns out this was only 1 game. The project guideline notwithstanding, it has become a crystal-clear consensus in sports AFD discussions that playing 1 game is nowhere near enough for Wikipedia inclusion. For association football, I can point to at least 50 AFDs with this outcome. There is no reason why rugby should be different. Geschichte ( talk) 10:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was the user who deprodded for the above reasons. The player certainly doesn't reach WP:GNG as there is only really coverage of him signing for certain sides, certainly not enough for significant coverage. He though of course has played 1 game which qualifies him as 'notable' under WP:NRU. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has as has been said set different guidelines on appearances for notability ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union seems to suggest only 1 game is needed for notability). I'd like to see other users views before making a final decision on keep or delete. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Having seen the comments of other editors I'm inclined to agree with them. Failing WP:GNG should take precedence in this case over WP:NRU especially as it's unlikely that the player will make any appearances that would qualify him further under WP:NRU in the near future. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 11:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete If a person does not pass GNG we should not have an article on them. If the rugby criteria lead to any other conclusion, they should be scrapped. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree with JPL and Geschichte. Failing GNG should take precedence over scraping through NRU by skin of teeth Spiderone 17:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - at the very top of the page that WP:NRU is on, it does say This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. and then later it says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I think this gives us licence to use common sense in the rare case when someone technically passes NRU but completely fails GNG. Spiderone 19:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Amritsar

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

I am extremely concerned about the sourcing (or lack thereof) for the information in this article. It seems to be WP:OR. From the four references provided, all of which are primary sources anyway, two of them don't work and the other two seem to link to the website for a skyscraper in Bhopal, not Amritsar. Even if we could reliably source some of these heights, we would still run into WP:SYNTH issues since there aren't any websites covering this topic as a whole. Even the exhaustive skyscraper database websites like Emporis and Skyscraperpage seem to contradict the info in this article. The article itself fails WP:LISTN for multiple reasons:

  • Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as the overwhelming majority of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article.
  • Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Database listings in Skyscraperpage and Emporis do not constitute significant coverage (and in this case the article doesn't even have that).
  • I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Amritsar' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
  • No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
  • The whole article is currently a violation of WP:OR.
  • The city is not the largest in Punjab nor is it the capital.
  • I really do not believe that a building being taller than 30m makes it notable. We do not set the bar so low in Kolkata so why are we doing it here?

Previous consensus on similar articles: Gwalior, Bhopal and Ranchi. Spiderone 10:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I see a stronger consensus to delete than to merge, but if anyone actively wants to take up the task of merging it, I'll restore for them to do so. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Grounding (earthing) culture

Grounding (earthing) culture (  | 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 (in quality, more so than quantity) article, fails WP:GNG. Possibly also contains WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOXing. Earlier A10 & G11 speedy was rejected, but I feel I would be in dereliction of duty if I didn't at least put forward this AfD. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 10:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:IMPERFECT, quality issues are not a reason to delete. Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.". The sources such as this review demonstrate that the topic is notable and so there's plenty of scope for further work. Note that we also have earthing therapy which currently redirects to nature therapy which doesn't say much about it and so this would be a better target. There's also barefoot which also doesn't say much about this. Me, I'm generating lots of static in the current weather and that's certainly not good for electronic devices. Maybe I should give this a try... Andrew🐉( talk) 12:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Just to clarify, it's not 'quality issues' of the article itself why I nominated this; my point was that although there seem to be plenty of references, their quality is suspect. Having said which, if this nomination ends up providing relief from your static problems, then at least something good will have come of it. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is a (poorly written) essay that is already covered in our pseudoscience article here which was merged last year. Praxidicae ( talk) 13:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Nature therapy which addresses grounding in its lead but fails to mention it in the body of the article, so this would fill that gap. Schazjmd  (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - adequately covered in Nature therapy, there's an absolute lack of any decent sources on this subject and it'd be pretty hard to actually write much about. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 18:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Already covered at Nature therapy. The fact that there is not much on it in that article is simply due to the fact that there are so few legitimate sources on this WP:FRINGE pseudoscience. There is nothing of worth here that would be appropriate to merge, and the article title would not make for a useful Redirect term. Rorshacma ( talk) 22:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • (I was the admin who declined the speedy on this, purely on procedural grounds.) Somewhat surprised to find myself leaning keep or merge. There do appear to be some sources on this topic; Andrew Davidson came up with one review above, and there's also another mainstream review. Fwiw, there's also a review in an Elsevier alternative medicine journal Explore that has been criticised for publishing BS, but does claim to do peer review, as well as a research paper in an open-access sports science journal which cites lots of mainstream sources; the PubMed sidebar also links a number of complementary medicine journals that might or might not meet MedRS standards but have made it into PubMed. There are a few other sources in the merged earthing therapy article's history that Jytdog removed as being primary, but to my mind contribute to the topic's notability. I think a lot of the feeling about this falls under the "I don't like it" banner. That said, the current article is far from neutral and contains apparent original research; merging to nature therapy is a possibility. Espresso Addict ( talk) 22:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge Fringe material is/can be further covered at nature therapy. All the books and journals cited are authored by the same few people including Chevalier, Sinitra, and Ober, the former having authored a review of several of his own articles. This does not demonstrate an substantially independent or broadly investigated area of pseudoscience. Reywas92 Talk 02:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Nature therapy per Schazjmd: which addresses grounding in its lead but fails to mention it in the body of the article, so this would fill that gap.   //  Timothy ::  talk  17:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- This concept is clearly a load of woo-woo, which is obvious from the sources presented so far. Although Wikipedia does, and should, have articles about pseudoscience, this is only possible when reliable sources discuss it as pseudoscience. What we have here is a wacky woo subject covered in promotional fringe publications. The reliable independent sources that treat this subject as pseudoscience don't seem to exist. It would be a disservice to our readers to signal-boost this kookery. Reyk YO! 17:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Reyk ... they said it perfectly. Having articles about total nonsense fringe theories is fine, if they have some notability. I've done a lot of reading on pseudoscience and this one is new to me. If anything, perhaps it should be merged into Electromagnetic hypersensitivity though the sources used here are pretty poor and I still think Delete is best. Also, the writer(s) of this article appear to be drawing conclusions or WP:SYNTHing. MrAureliusR Talk! 21:39, 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 redirect to Central Broward Park. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international cricket centuries at Central Broward Park

List of international cricket centuries at Central Broward Park (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
Note: Part of previous mass-AFD closed as "keep (snow close)" with a suggestion that a follow-up RFC was forthcoming: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate of information already presented in the parent Central Broward Park article. That article is not so long as to require a split, and this is an excessively short unnecessary listicle. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Agree, this is a content fork with a cut+paste list from the original article. I forget what the standalone criteria is (20 or 25 centuries), but at the current rate, it'll probably be 20 or 25 years before that is reached. If there was a lot more centuries AND a realistic chance that more would happen in the near future, then this would be a keep. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California#District 12 Fundamentally we have a policy that covers this as an extension of BLP1E and that we cover any notable material under the election. That editors are reporting that he has dropped out of the news after the election supports the validity of that argument as an accurate description of wider community norms. In the absence of clear consensus to set the policy aside, the policy based votes are the ones that need to be given full weight. Spartaz Humbug! 16:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Shahid Buttar

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

Shahid Buttar has received an consistently abnormally high amount of media coverage compared to the routine news cycle, about his campaign for CA-12. Sources have consistently highlighted the fact that Buttar is the first Democrat to run against Pelosi in her 30-year career, challenging her from the left, not the right.

The news coverage about Buttar's campaign is fairly consistent in emphasising this. Additional, more recent sources, from after the previous AfD in April 2020, have reported on Buttar's campaign for this fact. They have also reported on some controversial allegations made against his campaign, also after the previous AfD.

The Theresa Greenfield case interpreted our notability guidelines so that an individual outsider electoral candidate can be notable as long as their candidacy meets the GNG, even if that's the only notable thing they have. I have opened this discussion to determine whether Buttar is notable as well, for the same reasons.

Is Shahid Buttar notable, based on more recent media coverage as well as how our notability guidelines have been interpreted to account for not-yet elected candidates running "interesting" (for lack of a better word) political campaigns?

Are there any stipulations that restrict the scope of the Greenfield decision? (e.g. federal office vs. state level or local office)

→ Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 12:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, repeating the statements I made in the last AfD, Buttar has clearly received an exceptional level of coverage for multiple different reasons, receiving national coverage over a period of many months, which your average congressional candidate just does not have, meaning that he clearly passes WP:MILL. Examples of this coverage includes [75], [76], [77], [78], etc. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 12:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not every candidate that runs in an election becomes automatically notable for receiving routine election coverage. Delete again per WP:NPOL. KidAd talk 18:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - From previous discussions I've had about this guy, it's clear to me that his "candidacy meets the GNG". I'm personally a deletionist, so I understand the desire not to make pages for anyone who's ever run for political office. That said, there are going to be examples where a non-notable person runs a clearly notable campaign. What do we do in that case? Seems clunky to make a "Candidacy of X" page. Might as well just make a page for the person. NickCT ( talk) 21:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just wanted to say that Buttar has lost again. It was not close. ( NYT). KidAd talk 05:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge He's not notable apart from the campaign, and he's only notable because he challenged a prominent lawmaker. The article is small enough I don't see any reason why we can't merge and redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in California, since we don't normally keep articles for losing candidates per WP:BLP1E/ WP:NOTNEWS/the time-honoured idea many losing candidates slink back to private life pretty quickly. The article isn't that long, and we can properly cover him in the context of the election on that page without losing any important information, but I don't think he's notable enough for a standalone article by a wide margin. SportingFlyer T· C 13:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Also, a couple of the keep !votes above notes (explicitly or implicitly) that the "candidacy meets the GNG" - if that's considered a notable campaign, and it probably would be, an alternative option would be to create a new page on the race between him and Pelosi, and redirect it there until he does something else notable. My specific issue here is that he is not a notable individual at this time but I have no qualms with covering the notable event he was associated with. SportingFlyer T· C 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ SportingFlyer: - re "create a new page on the race" - I think that's fair. But what do we call that page? NickCT ( talk) 14:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Something akin to "2020 California 12th district election." SportingFlyer T· C 14:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, I'd support rename to 2020 California 12th district election. That said, this still strikes me as a slightly clunky solution, b/c we'll end up with a page that is nominally about the district election, but is actually about Buttar. NickCT ( talk) 05:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Ideally, it'd be merged with the information at the page I proposed for the merge and then forked instead of renamed, but there are attribution issues with moving/renaming/et cetera so there be a "more correct" procedure. SportingFlyer T· C 11:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This is breaking delete, I'm absolutely fine with delete, I thought this would be more controversial given the pre-election hubbub. SportingFlyer T· C 17:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Seriously modify if Keep I'm an inclusionist, and lean toward keeping pages like this. However, the page is heavily biased toward Buttar, and was very likely set up by one of his supporters. For example, the sexual harassment claims against him represented a substantial impediment to his campaign, yet are addressed as though they were a random uncorroborated blip; similar allegations of misogyny are not given attention. I lean toward including major candidates, and Buttar has won twice, but the article needs to have its bias removed. PickleG13 ( talk) 09:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I believe I've satisfied the criteria for Buttar's notability separate and apart from his runs for office (even though the section I added on "media," with extensive links to his media interviews and op-eds, was deleted). I'm happy to add a section for the boards of directors of nonprofits he's served on. I've also tried to remove the bias, though I'd welcome additional thoughts on the harassment claims. (With respect to the latter, this seems like an important citation: https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1295856245115682816.) Thank you. User:sdi-jr ( User talk:sdi-jr) 08:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If you're suggesting that I was paid to restore Buttar's article, I'm afraid to say that I have never seen a cent for any the hours I've toiled for this website, editing or programming, since I made this account in 2009. This is not by choice, believe me; I offered to the WMF my two hands and the fire of passion multiple times over the years, but they always turned me away! Working for no pay, unfortunately, does not put food on the table, so to me, Wikipedia remains the hobby it always had been. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That was not my intent. To be honest, I did not see who had suggested restoring the article and was not directing that at a specific individual. I simply raised it as a possibility because someone had previously noted that the article appeared to be biased in his favor and was likely written by a supporter and his filings show that his campaign paid someone for that purpose. On this latter point I want to be totally clear: I am not speculating as to whether his campaign paid someone to help establish a Wikipedia article for him, I am stating as a matter of fact that one of his campaign's recent FEC filings lists a disbursement with "Wikipedia article" explicitly stated as the purpose for said disbursement and the group that received this payment offers services related to developing and editing a Wikipedia article for their clients (see linked pages in my prior comment). Based on my (relatively limited) understanding of editing etiquette with respect to conflicts of interests, etc. I thought I should mention it given prior comments about the lean of his article's content just so that others are aware and can take it into consideration. I apologize if it seemed as though I was casting aspersions on you or any other individual user because, again, that was not at all my intent. → Kx253 ( talk) 09:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I want to bring attention to the argument I made on the talk page that considers Shahid Buttar's campaign in the same light as Theresa Greenfield. The details are a bit of a mouthful so I'll collapse them. But in summary, here are my findings:
  1. Buttar's performance in the 2018 election is entirely irrelevant to the election in 2020.
  2. Buttar's coverage is not routine election coverage. The point isn't that Buttar won the primary, it's that he did so by challenging Pelosi from the left, not the right.
  3. Buttar passes the ten-year test regardless of the result of the 2020 election as a figure as part of a social movement.
My explanation copied from the talk page
I found minimal discussion in the AN thread that discussed treating Senate candidates differently from the House, non-federal office, etc. Discussion about the Senate specifically seemed to be because the particular case pertained to a Senate race, not due to any particular attribute of the Senate itself. I believe we should seek further discussion to clarify this point. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your response!
  • Buttar's performance in the 2018 election is entirely irrelevant to the election in 2020.
Buttar placed 2nd in 2020 in the primary. As a result, under California law, the only people on the ballot are Pelosi and Buttar. There is no one else. It is a two-person race. Buttar is as legitimate as any other member of the opposition.
  • WP:NPOL explicitly defers to the GNG in the case of not-yet elected candidates. The Shahid Buttar of right now has received an exceptional amount of media coverage compared to the routine news cycle, which satisfies the GNG.
The reason for this—which also forms a pretty good argument for the 10 year test, IMO—is in the headline of the Intercept article:
In short, they believe that it's relevant that Buttar won the primary, and that he did so by challenging Pelosi from the left, not the right. The Intercept is hardly alone in this sentiment. A cursory Google search yields numerous other reliable sources about him.
This was not at all a comprehensive search, due to time constraints from other real-life obligations; I'm sure that there are many more sources. These sources have all been published months apart, looking at Buttar and his campaign from many other angles as well. Most of them date to after April 2020, the date of the previous AfD. The reasonable notability concerns from earlier this year are clearly obsolete.
This is one of the most important figures in US politics, who has been considered untouchable for 30 years, receiving a credible challenge. California law is designed so that this challenge does not have to be based on usual partisan lines; it is the voters of San Francisco who made Buttar more relevant than the Republican Party in 2020. It is a challenge where Buttar is the only contender left, and the one chosen by the voters to do it.
  • Buttar passes the ten-year test regardless of the result of the 2020 election as a figure as part of a social movement.
Either Buttar is notable because he won a federal office (and served as an example of the Democratic party's leftward shift into the "AOC era"), or Buttar is notable because he lost (and serves as a prominent case study demonstrating the limits of that shift, even in San Francisco, the mecca of liberal hippies). The fact that his candidacy has reached this point—a general election challenge—is notable, and the sources constantly doting over that fact agree.
The Theresa Greenfield case interpreted our notability guidelines so that an individual outsider electoral candidate can be notable as long as their candidacy meets the GNG, even if that's the only notable they have. The past few months show that Buttar has done the same.
I do not believe it is appropriate to immediately turn this back into a redirect. The original reason for the deletion no longer applies, given the new sources and the Theresa Greenfield decision. A discussion board is a better venue for this kind of conversation, and would attract more people for a more robust and organised discussion. I imagine that this will have to be had eventually, at some point, so we might as well get it over with right now. We can solve two problems in one conversation. As a result - again, considering current events - I'll restore the article with the new sources I found, and list it at AfD to solicit additional opinions.
→ Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
In addition, here's a question to those who point to Buttar's loss as a justification to delete: should Theresa Greenfield's article be deleted for the same reason? If so, then there's a free opportunity to put the article up for AfD. → Σ σ ς. ( Sigma) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Theresa Greenfield ran for the Senate, not the House of Representatives, so she's not a valid WP:WAX analogue to Buttar. I'm not necessarily saying she should have an article either, but the fact that an unsuccessful Senate candidate might have an article is entirely irrelevant to whether an unsuccessful House candidate should have an article or not. (The argument has even been attempted in the past that we should keep articles about unsuccessful city council candidates because we didn't delete the article about Hillary Clinton when she lost the presidency — which is obviously an absurd non-starter of an argument, not least because Hillary Clinton has held other notable offices independently of her failure to win one specific election, but it does demonstrate precisely why WAX arguments don't work.) Each article has to be evaluated on its own merits or lack thereof, and the existence of one does not automatically necessitate the existence of the other. Bearcat ( talk) 15:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per the many arguments already cited. Candidates running for office who are unsuccessful are not notable, per Wikipedia guidelines. He lost, badly 80%-20%. The argument 'this challenge is unlike any other and is notable' is falt out false.Pelosi did better in the general than in the primary. It wasn't even the closest of Pelosi's races. For context, Pelosi beat in 2016 Preston Picus 80%-19% and in 2018 Lisa Remmer 86%-14%, so Buttar's result isn't particularly noticeable or good. There's no reason he is notable, especially after he lost. Additionally, the fact he paid for a Wikipedia page as alleged above is quite troubling. This is the fourth time we're having this discussion, please stop and accept the deletion. Eccekevin ( talk) 06:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I am opposed to the creation of 2020 California 12th district election. After the election is concluded and the results came in, we can see it was much ado about nothing. The 'almost upset' didn't even come close to happening and Nancy Pelosi won 80%-20%. Additionally, Buttar wasn't even the best performer against Pelosi, she's had a closer margin in past elecitons. Finally, Buttar dropped completely out of the news cycle. Creating a page (or keeping this one) would be WP:RECENTISM. The challenge was not credible, and hence the candidate was not notable. Eccekevin ( talk) 06:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per SportingFlyer above. Losing candidates do not meet WP:NPOL, sustained coverage ended post-election, unlikely to pass WP:10YT. -- CharlesShirley ( talk) 16:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG given his coverage. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 19:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I wound not say so. Coverage is usually high for challenger candidates, so we should not fall for WP:RECENTISM. Additionally, coverage has been non-existant since his defeat. Eccekevin ( talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
It does not pass WP:GNG. There has been some coverage only during the election (which happens to most candidates), but that coverage has immediately stopped. This would be in violation of WP:RECENTISM. Eccekevin ( talk) 23:12, 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 keep. After a relist, no-one but the nominator is arguing for this to be deleted (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Valmiki Ashram

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

Article created by a disruptive sockpuppet and submitted to AfC multiple times by his sock IPs. There are many temples known as "Valmiki Ashram" and this one is not covered in any of the sources as, most of it hinges on recent news sources (which were reported on after recent controversial claims by the Nepalese Prime Minister) and should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
All of the sources you listed are passing single word mentions and none of them discuss this in length at all. So the article still fails WP:INDEPTH. (PS: Two of the sources you listed spotlightnepal.com, ekantipur.com were published after the controversial claims). There are multiple such "Valmiki Ashrams" most of them are not covered in any depth or significance, hence non-notable. This article was specifically created by the disruptive sock to POVPUSH this as the "real" Valmiki Ashram all over wiki after those claims. I don't see it failing WP:NOTNEWS since most of the coverage of this is after the recent events, and even if passing mentions can be found in WP:RS it is still not in-depth or notable. Gotitbro ( talk) 19:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
There are plenty of sources that go in-depth (but they are in Nepali): [79] [80] [81] ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 13:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
All of these are very recent perennial news sources as well. Gotitbro ( talk) 00:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
This is like saying delete the 2020 United States presidential election article because it happened recently. These Nepali sources go in-depth. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 13:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ DayakSibiriak: Please reconsider your vote/comment. This temple is not related to the Balmikism denomination/sect (which is mostly based in Punjab), its an unrelated structure in Nepal. Though I concur that the name is confusing since we already have a Ashram (Balmiki) article (which is about all general worship places of the denomination) and as I have said previously there multiple places known as "Valmiki Ashrams" and this one is not notable enough. Gotitbro ( talk) 02:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Agree. DayakSibiriak ( talk) 03:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ DayakSibiriak: Then please strike/change your vote because it is based on incorrect reasoning. Gotitbro ( talk) 10:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Recently-created account with no significant edits outside deletion discussions. Gotitbro ( talk) 00:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Sorry, none of them are in-depth beyond single line mentions the last source doesn't even mention it (the first one is not RS either). Gotitbro ( talk) 00:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I think the existing sources in the article and those mentioned above are sufficient for notability and in-depth. For example,this source [86] from 'Times of India' published in 2012.
Moreover the controversial claim by Nepalese PM is about the birthplace of Rama; Thori in Nepal or Ayodhya in India. So I think this has nothing to do with Valmiki Ashram. Mnop1234 ( talk) 05:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Single phrase/line mentions are clearly not in-depth (or even WP:GNG for that matter). The claims are relevant since that is what lead to the creation of this article by the sockpuppet in the first place and a lot of news articles being cited here and in the article are based/follow on them (as described in those news articles itself). Gotitbro ( talk) 10:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Cazador, Arizona

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

There is a "stage"/"phase" of Cochise culture named after this spot, but while the reference which says so calls this a "community", it's actually another isolated passing siding in the desert. As such it does not inherit notability from the anthropological reference. Mangoe ( talk) 03:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Searching newspapers.com is a bit tricky because Cazador means Hunter in Spanish - I was not able to find anything of use. Searching Google for '"cazador" el paso and southwestern' brings up a number of hits indicating that it was a water station. WP:STATION applies. BTW - Cazador was part of a group deletion, there might be some resources listed that could be of help. As Cazador had no legal recognition, it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND. As there is at best trivial coverage, it does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND Cxbrx ( talk) 04:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Asher, Arizona

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

A passing siding and nothing more. No buildings or other signs of a settlement. Mangoe ( talk) 03:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning delete According to this article, the spot was only a railroad station until the 1950s, when a family opened a motel and small housing development on the site. The name Asher apparently stuck for the site, since a 1960 article uses it (and mentions the same family who opened the motel). The trouble is, the first article implies there was no community here before the 1950s, and whatever happened in the 1950s didn't really seem to get off the ground, since there sure isn't much at the site today. Interstate 8 would have bypassed the motel in the 1970s, and while there's something that could be a trailer park on aerial imagery from the 1990s, it's gone by the early 2000s. Without any evidence that this was a more permanent or otherwise notable settlement, I'm inclined to call it a short-lived locale and delete it. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 15:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Another rail stop from the steam engine days or passing siding, never a community of any kind. I discount that it ever had a class-3 post office; the source says Asher (Wellton) which I believe means the post office was in Wellton. The newspaper article says the "developer" was planning a motel, cafe, and 15 houses on 1/2 acre lots. I looked at the area with the Yuma County GIS app and didn't see the 15 lots, so I doubt his community ever got off the ground. MB 16:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with everyrthing User:MB noted; seems to be lacking enough information to meet WP:GNG 10Sany1? ( talk) 21:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete. The post office reference was the only reference I could find that states that Asher had a post office. As the reference seems to concern a proposed helicopter route, I question as to whether there actually was a post office at Asher. Barnes does not list Asher. Searching Newspapers.com for "Wellton Asher in Arizona" found [87] and the article found by TheCatalyst31. Here's a passing trivial reference for Asher being a town. Here's an SP timetable that mentions Asher. Asher appears in a 1926 map. Asher is not listed in a 1934 Arizona Railroad Distance Guide, though Wellton is. Asher was clearly a railroad station, so WP:STATION applies. Other than one possibly suspect reference, there are no other references supporting the fact that Asher had a post office, so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. Asher has almost no coverage, the coverage that is present is trivial, so Asher does not meet #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx ( talk) 03:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Tabla. Consensus is that available refs to not establish notability per relevant guidelines. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 17:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Kayda

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

The topic of the article appears to be for a musical phrase, however, the specific phrase that this article is about is not notable; all sources are self-published, and the article has several NPOV issues. Edit: the article has undergone a redesign; the NPOV issues were mostly fixed, however the sources still do not establish notability. JJP...MASTER! [talk to] JJP... master? 02:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

The content now has been changed....please review now and tell me if there are any faults in the page Kayda. ShubhanTelang ( talk) 03:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article is not self-sufficient to be recognized as an independent article. At best some information can be merged or exported to tabla, though mostly it sounds like how to or tutorial. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 13:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Tabla. Clearly is a thing, but if the given references are a fair sampling of what sources are available, then the subject does not have the legs for a standalone article - I would say only two (the Rhombus book and Hindustani Classical Music page) can work as somewhat reliable sources under our guidelines. Thus, treat as subsection within a larger article, where it is easier to get away with borderline refs. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Actually Kayda is a topic that should be kept separate as it is a very important topic in Tabla. But if it is to be merged with the page of Tabla, then I think it should be merged rather than deleting the whole page. ShubhanTelang ( talk) 02:57, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 15:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Kit Kemp

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

The given sources do not show in-depth coverage of the subject herself. A BEFORE search gives me some interviews in low-profile sources and a good number of passing mentions, but there doesn't seem to be enough here for a standalone article. It also reads somewhat like a PR bio. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Seems to have received coverage in some major sources: NYTimes, The Times, Independent, Telegraph, DailyMail, short mention in Vanity Fair. (I did however also just see low-profile sources for the first few pages of Google). In addition to having received a (what I think counts here as a lower level) Order of the British Empire title, I think this is a keep – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    The NYTimes source is good, though I'm not sure it qualifies as in-depth coverage. I can't comment on the Times, because I don't have access. Independent is an interview, so very much suboptimal to establish notability, and the Telegraph source is mostly about her house, not so much about her. Daily mail is written in first person, so not independent coverage and essentially an advert. I agree that notability here can be considered borderline (and I'm not trying to question your keep vote), but combined with the PR bio aspect, I still think deletion is adequate here. Best, Blablubbs ( talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Appears to meet the threshold as an author, with multiple independent reviews of her three books. Also press coverage per Þjarkur, above, as well as numerous additional magazine articles. Espresso Addict ( talk) 13:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are no glaring issues in terms of notability in my mind, and also looks good in terms of sourcing and reference support.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 21:27, 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. Mojo Hand ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

DJ Young Chow

DJ Young Chow (  | 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 dj, no meaningful coverage, never charted and it's basically just a resume. All the sources are either unreliable, paid for, interviews or press releases. Praxidicae ( talk) 00:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 16:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Gary Gray (author)

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

WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial sources that could demonstrate notability. Poorly sourced now for several years. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Dropped pin Near Estepona, 29680, Málaga https://goo.gl/maps/cLaeSMdR1rs3dJjJ7
  2. ^ Dropped pin Near Fin del túnel subterráneo del río Monterroso., Paseo Marítimo Pedro Manrique, 30, 29680 Estepona, Málaga https://goo.gl/maps/xSd8iKbRvwdTmB2c9
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_November_21&oldid=992368154"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE