From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 22 December 24 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 03:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

John J. McGrath (entrepreneur)

John J. McGrath (entrepreneur) (  | 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 CEO/Founder. Seems to be failing WP:GNG to begin with. The two solid sources are Entrepreneur and Huffington - but both are basically authored/contributed articles, so barely independent. Most of the coverage is about the company he has founded and not him. Palmsandbeaches ( talk) 08:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not one of the cited sources is about him. This is a vanity page about a dude with a job. FalconK ( talk) 08:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable businessmen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Missvain ( talk) 03:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

San Lorenzo (restaurant)

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

Not notable and unsourced PoliceSheep99 ( talk) 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 ( talk) 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 ( talk) 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The restaurant shows to have good amount references including this one. The article may need rework. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 21:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the Telegraph article that Mamushir lists, as well as this piece in the London Evening Standard, this obit for the founder in the Times; paywalled, but I assume it covers the restaurant too. There's also this review in the Guardian. For what it's worth – not much – he was also covered in the express. Blablubbs| talk 00:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have added more info and new sources suggested by Blablubbs. Based on the sources, it seems to be one of the most popular restaurants in London. Expertwikiguy ( talk) 02:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BTW - being created by a blocked user isn't a rationale for deletion. Missvain ( talk) 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Origin Protocol

Origin Protocol (  | 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:NCORP. References are routine sources about funding and aspirations. The creator Isingness was blocked for advertising. Coin ( talk) 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The subject seems notable. There are supposedly a number of references. Created by blocked user can not be sole reason of deletion. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 21:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands - apart from being promotional spam from a banned user, I don't see that it meets WP:NCORP - David Gerard ( talk) 11:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not significant - I can't determine what significant things they've done in the blockchain space. The website reads more like a glorified LinkedIn page for the team's skills, than a resource on the 'Origin Protocol'. Haxwell ( talk) 16:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain ( talk) 01:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Robert Brown (academic)

Robert Brown (academic) (  | 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 academic. I updated the article to his current roles and added two sources, both of which are brief mentions or quotes of Brown. Searching for significant coverage in independent reliable sources returns nothing. [1] and [2]. -  Mnnlaxer |  talk |  stalk 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I cannot find any good coverage online. I can't find evidence of a chairship or a significant research contribution that would make him meet WP:PROF. This organizational chart says that the deputy vice-chancellorship only has one unit under it: the manufacturing centre. Possibly ( talk) 01:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:Prof. I could not find any citations to his scholarly work (I could be corrected). Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC). reply
  • Delete. Appears to be just a regular academic administrator, does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 ( talk) 02:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Same as above. Seems like the page was made in 2008 and has slipped past editors until now. Jmill1806 ( talk) 02:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NPROF Spudlace ( talk) 10:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As noted above the subject does not seem to pass WP:PROF or to meet any other notability requirement. Dunarc ( talk) 22:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 00:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Joel Richard Williams

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner ( talk) 22:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:46, 23 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 (nomination withdrawn). Geschichte ( talk) 22:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Tropical Storm Krovanh (2020)

Tropical Storm Krovanh (2020) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable, should be merged into 2020 Pacific typhoon season ~ AC5230 talk 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. AC5230 talk 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I messed up. Someone close this please. ~ AC5230 talk 21:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Hurricanehink:. -- Hurricane Tracker 495 23:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep listed sources suffice. Perhaps more sources will do. JWilz12345 ( Talk| Contrib's.) 12:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Ugh,now we gotta run through the seven day process. Keep, because 8 deaths is a lot, and it is important for East Asian readers. -- Hurricane Tracker 495 13:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. 🐔  Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It would not be right to merge it, it has caused death and damage and it has affected the Philippines and according to the Weather Agency it can enter the Indian Ocean, then it is clear not to merge. Dam222 🌋 ( talk) 15:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Why is this at AFD if you want to merge it? Y E Pacific Hurricane 16:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Yellow Evan: It was a mistake. @ Hurricanehink and Cyclonebiskit: Please close. -- Hurricane Tracker 495 20:02, 24 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) 03:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Fntastic

Fntastic (  | 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:NORG with primary source only. Nothing of substance found on a search. Otr500 ( talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete They have a couple of mildly notable games, but notability is not inherited. There doesn't seem to be anything notable to say about the company itself. ApLundell ( talk) 00:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Found in some sources in connection with their games, bht significant coverage of the company itself is lacking; notability is not inherited. IceWelder [ ✉] 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As per ApLundell. MrsSnoozyTurtle ( talk) 06:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain ( talk) 22:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

2020 Avignon incident

2020 Avignon incident (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this drew a flurry of coverage for a few days after the event, coverage has petered out and it seems unlikely to have significant long term effects. Does not meet WP:NEVENT. It might warrant a mention at Les Identitaires, in which case this should be converted to a redirect, but as there does not appear to be any mention of it there and it's not clear to me that it would be DUE, my primary suggestion is for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This is a single event, it could easily be included in another article which would be more appropriate. ~RAM ( talk) 21:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect per nom. Mccapra ( talk) 21:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We need more coverage with continued discussions to be considered something as notable topic when it is WP:SINGLEEVENT ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 21:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
*Delete, Per nom.
WP:SINGLEEVENT, 
Alex-h (
talk) 12:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawn by nominator Sam Walton ( talk) 20:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Blåhøe

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

This page is a duplicate of the article Blåhøe. Since it contains nothing that needs merging, I suggest it be deleted. Anfornum ( talk) 20:31, 23 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. Seems sufficient to pass GNG. If people want to discuss things like mergers and redirects, please do so on appropriate talk pages. Missvain ( talk) 03:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

MedPage Today

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

While the subject appears to be the publisher of some solid investigative journalism, I can't find much coverage at all about MedPage Today. Provided sources are limited to mere mentions, quotes of coverage (largely in the context of a joint investigation into opioid abuse conducted with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel), and non-independent coverage. Online I was only able to find more of the same. Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP, and thus the redirect to Everyday Health should be restored. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Everyday Health: Same reasoning as the nominator. Could have just been done per WP:BEBOLD ~RAM ( talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    Given the amount of edit warring over article recreation in the article's history, I figured that AfD was more appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
User:Ram1055 Can you please explain and provide your justification rather than saying "Same reasoning as the nominator. Could have just been done per WP:BEBOLD". MentroPat ( talk) 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
This should mean you don't have any explanation User:Ram1055 MentroPat ( talk) 04:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • MentroPat, my reasoning is very clear. The article could have just been redirected per WP:BEBOLD. It seems as though you have an obviously close connection to this article, and should probably review those guidelines. ~RAM ( talk) 11:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Thank you for absolutely accepting by merely repeating your words that you don't have any Explanation. I don't know my having any connection with MedPage Today but since you know what I don't I ask you to illuminate me with your knowledge. You should read this report by US senate where they stated many corporate are involved in unethical practices for example bribing and all to suppress the truth and that 'obviously' implicate someone for having inverted conflict of interest with this article when they desperately try to delete an important article even when lacking any explanation to why they want so. Plus please spend some time to read what one of a medical professionals who are saviors in these notorious days of pandemic has said below. - MentroPat ( talk) 20:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
User:onel5969 Can you please explain and provide your justification rather than vaguely saying "not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG" because there tons of references available over the internet and similar within Wikipedia itself MentroPat ( talk) 02:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - "Rosguill" possibly the problem faced by you is that if you search "Wall Street Journal" in Google News, there will be hardly any secondary sources visible until you dig real deep. Same is happening with Medpage Today. So should that suggest the page of wall street journal should be deleted for not apparently fetching enough secondary sources per your argument? It is our Wikipedia that itself has countless reference to "MedPage Today" - https://en.wikipedia.org/?search="MedPage+Today"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns0=1 and a number of them are neither just mere references nor about just about any opioid investigations (which triggered Senate Investigation, I feel puzzled when Senate seals something, how that becomes not independent and primary sources and per my little understanding when Senate vetted someone's work it must be very recognizable. My opinion is there must be a page in Wikipedia about the 'Opioid Epidemic' as well which is a coinage of Senate and it must be undoubtedly significant and pertinent to every citizen of USA) but about like Veganism, Peanut butter test. Rosguil said they didn't find much independent sources but what I see in exact contrary there are very few primary sources in the article. Also I don't understand that how in addition to the already mentioned over 40 references in the article when we have references like as follows made others think it doesn't pass the rules! (REALLY? ARE YOU KIDDNG?) :
(please remove the quotes in case you can't find anything)
1. http://www.michaelbfriedman.com/mbf/images/Suicide_Prevention_for_MPT__PF.pdf
2. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Life_Disrupted/4hCiAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
3. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Malignant/lKPeDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
4. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/You_Can_t_Afford_to_Get_Sick/WKd0wOdnaBgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PT202&printsec=frontcover
5. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Guns_in_American_Society_An_Encyclopedia/QeGJH48PT0kC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover
6. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Eat_Move_Sleep/cU08AQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA241&printsec=frontcover
7. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Clinical_Trials_with_Missing_Data/fx7gAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA39&printsec=frontcover
8. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Primary_Care_of_the_Child_With_a_Chronic/qdkVnL3qUNsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA638&printsec=frontcover
9. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Healthcare_Valuation_The_four_pillars_of/NIdVBwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA497&printsec=frontcover
10. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Last_and_Greatest_Battle/eGSzBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA325&printsec=frontcover
11. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Handbook_of_Test_Security/xkIqAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PT31&printsec=frontcover
12. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/High_Stakes/ju59iMfOzsAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA204&printsec=frontcover
13. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/My_Life_with_Temporomandibular_Tmj/2r5PAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA65&printsec=frontcover
14. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_United_State/LWBQAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq="MedPage+Today"&pg=PA160&printsec=frontcover
15. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/HBS_Alumni_Bulletin/VARbAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
16. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Facts_of_Life_and_More/-zBHAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
17. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Do_No_Harm/eSgeAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
18. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Taser_Electronic_Control_Devices_and_Sud/dAogAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
19. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Journal_of_Health_Care_Law_Policy/OZVLAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
20. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Symposium/4u1CAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
21. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Law_of_Bioethics/7AsrAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
22. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Food_Protection_Trends/-EcsAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
23. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Oath_Betrayed/3OnaAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq="MedPage+Today"&dq="MedPage+Today"&printsec=frontcover
In any case I would like to thank Rosguill for forcing me to learn rules about deletion discussion by nominating this and compelling me to work further on the article. I hope this will lead us to see a very informative article which MUST have its place in Wikipedia MentroPat ( talk) 02:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I clicked on 4 of the above links at random, and each one of them appears to cite Medpage at most 3 times ( [3], [4], [5], [6]). I found 0 independent coverage. From what I've seen of the source so far, MedPage seems like to be a reliable source on WP:USEBYOTHERS grounds, but we don't have the kind of significant coverage needed to write an article. signed, Rosguill talk 03:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I wonder what prohibited you from checking the first link. However I have added that in the article with the new sections. You may refer to the new additions. You are repeatedly saying you are unable to find independent sources. I want to ask why you think these references - [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] are not independent? The rule you cited about independent sources says - Is this source self-published or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources.) Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject? Is this source primary or not? (For this question, see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. The book links checked by you are published from John Hopkins University, Willey, Penguine these are of course independent sources. MentroPat ( talk) 04:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply


  • Redirect to Everyday Health- Interesting subject having potential to become a self sufficient article, but we need multiple significant coverage about the subject for that.
  • Comment - Per WP:HEY the article may pass GNG, thus withdrawing my vote. MentroPat, its understandable your frustration when your article is nominated for AfD. Please be nice with other editors. They are tirelessly working to keep Wikipedia a better place. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 10:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Aren't you able to see there are too many links with significant coverage? example - [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] MentroPat ( talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Trevor Mutero

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

No genuine evidence of notability. Note that Mutero himself has edited this article before. His claim to notability is his alleged 8 appearances for Glyfada, which have been on this article for seven years without any proof. Playmakerstats has no record of any appearances. I then checked Football Database, which has no record of Mutero at all, but does feature Glyfada players that supposedly should have played alongside him such as Nikoltsis and Efstathiou. Similarly, Soccerway accurately documented the players of Glyfada during the time that Mutero supposedly played eight games for them, see here, here and here and, once again, he does not have a profile on Soccerway. If he made eight appearances in the second tier of Greece then this will have been documented somewhere. It's possible that the 8 games were for the reserve team of Glyfada, which would mean that he does not actually pass WP:NFOOTBALL.

He fails WP:GNG by quite a long way above all else.

I found next to no Greek coverage. There is this, which is just a transfer announcement. Spiderone 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Players from Semi Professional Leagues need very strict WP:GNG to be satisfied which we do not see here. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 21:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete,No sign of notability. Alex-h ( talk) 12:14, 27 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. Reminder: Being created by a blocked or banned user isn't a rationale for deletion. But, I trust Ghost Destroyer's assessment. Missvain ( talk) 03:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

World War Underground

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

Just another non-notable album GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Yet another non-notable compilation album by Soul Crusher. Sources are crappy, google search didn't return much better sources (also, the name makes searching difficult). I wonder how many of Soul Crusher's trash is left, though I have a slight suspicion that this is just the beginning and many of these still lurk in the shadows. He is gone (he is indeffed), but we are still suffering from all of his non-notable articles. But anyways, this is not notable. Isn't there anything that would make these articles gone faster? I mean, if there are still lots of these unnotable stuff, nominating each of them one by one is tedious. We need something to rid of this stuff quickly. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The user who created the page was blocked with revoked TPA and the article has been tagged for notability.

– Cupper52 Discuss! 09:57, 25 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) 03:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Thugs 'n' Kisses

AfDs for this article:
Thugs 'n' Kisses (  | 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 album. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Another non-notable industrial compilation album article by Soul Crusher. Though it's a bit older, as it was created in 2016 (although it had an Afd back in 2010, so this is actually the second nomination, as it was deleted in 2010). Sourced to the same junk featured in all of Soul Crusher's articles, including a blank Allmusic page (track listing + user reviews), blogs, discogs and the album booklet. Google search did not return any RS. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 20:05, 23 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 as disambiguation page. Closing per consensus among all participants, after renaming and cleaning up the article. (non-admin closure) gidonb ( talk) 01:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Littel (surname)

Littel (surname) (  | 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 list. It appears to be a list of people with the surname "Littel", but only lists two non-notable people without their own articles from the 16th and 19th centuries - can't find anyone else (with articles) with that exact surname. Only source given is someone's personal website about their family. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:¹ articles - this current article may be the "Littel" article listed there. Seagull123 Φ 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Seagull123 Φ 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - I did find Emlen T. Littel for what it's worth, but no other articles with that surname. Chris857 ( talk) 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Littel. We can add Emlen T. Littel and make it a disambiguation page between the person and the house. More articles will follow at another time. Should also remove the entire paragraph with Dutch stuff. gidonb ( talk) 03:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I believe that the above is a rare trivial outcome and that the interest of the WP user to receive a good article without WP:OR and trivia takes priority. Hence, I made the above changes. If someone disagrees these can be rolled back. The added value is that participants can see where I wanted to take this. In any case, the closing editor and the disambiguation reviewer will take another look. gidonb ( talk) 17:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Tagging all others in this discussion: Seagull123 and Chris857. gidonb ( talk) 17:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
And also those who discussed on the talk page: Cullen328 and Mac_Henni. gidonb ( talk) 17:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Based on how the page is now, I would be fine with ending the AFD (is this a case of WP:HEY?) Chris857 ( talk) 18:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Chris857, thank you! If you have added the close buttons, you can close yourself. Otherwise, you may want to ask for (speedy) keep based on the progress of the article. gidonb ( talk) 22:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Gidonb: I agree with you and Chris857, based on the current page, it seems fine to keep it, in my opinion. As I'm the nominator here, I'm not sure how this works, does WP:WDAFD apply here? Seagull123 Φ 23:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Seagull123:. I have !voted so technically I shouldn't close. @ Chris857: hasn't !voted, only commented, so he'd be the best man for the job. Otherwise I'll be bold again and go ahead anyway! gidonb ( talk) 23:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
OK, going ahead anyway per consensus among participants. gidonb ( talk) 01:08, 25 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) 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Co-operative Builders of Canada

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

Despite including a plural in the name, the "Co-operative Builders of Canada", was not a party, it was the ballot designation used by a single candidate in a single election— and one who won a mere 0.7% of the vote. There is no significant nor lasting coverage of the man nor his so-called party, nor even anything to say about his run: all the page can muster is that he was a plumber. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Essentially a biography of an unsuccessful and therefore non-notable independent candidate for political office, made over as a "political party" instead of a biography. But even our inclusion standards for political parties don't guarantee an article to every self-conferred ballot designation that one non-notable political candidate invented for himself, and still require reliable source coverage about the political party and evidence that it was a registered political party. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 24 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) 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Parti ouvrier canadien

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

The "Parti ouvrier canadien" was not a party, it was the ballot designation of a single candidate in a single election— and one who won a paltry 0.8% of the vote. There is no significant nor lasting coverage of the man nor his "party", nor even anything to say about his run: all the page can muster is that he was a technician. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Essentially a biography of an unsuccessful and therefore non-notable independent candidate for political office, made over as a "political party" instead of a biography. But even our inclusion standards for political parties don't guarantee an article to every self-conferred ballot designation that one non-notable political candidate invented for himself, and still require reliable source coverage about the political party and evidence that it was a registered political party. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Canadian Democrat

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

"Canadian Democrat" was not a party, it was the ballot designation of a single candidate in a single election— and one who won a paltry 1.32% of the vote. There is no significant nor lasting coverage of the man nor his "party", nor even anything to say about his run: all the page can muster is that he was a law student. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr ( talk) 19:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there is no reason to have an article on a designation of one person. The person might be notable (if they were trounced that badly, not for this, but maybe something else) but this designation has no notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Essentially a biography of an unsuccessful and therefore non-notable independent candidate for political office, made over as a "political party" instead of a biography. But even our inclusion standards for political parties don't guarantee an article to every self-conferred ballot designation that one non-notable political candidate invented for himself, and still require reliable source coverage about the political party and evidence that it was a registered political party. Bearcat ( talk) 15:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is something that should've been a WP:PROD. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ ping|Chess}} on reply) 09:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete.Taking part in an election does not make anybody notable. Alex-h ( talk) 14:00, 27 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 Wrightbus. (As stated below didn't even think of the manufacturer or redirecting there, Happy with that so speedy closing.) (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 22:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Wright Nimbus

Wright Nimbus (  | 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 bus, Unfortunately there's no evidence of notability, There may be more offline however that's a big may be!,

The bus is basically a Plaxton Beaver just with slightly different side windows and a different styled destination window, Could be merged although no idea where?, Fails GNG. Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 19:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The Bushranger Don't you think if I had thought of that that I would've done that ?, Redirecting there just never came in my head for whatever reason, That being said I'm happy with redirecting. – Davey2010 Talk 22:30, 23 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) 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Corey Johnson (music producer)

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

No evidence of notability. The references do not establish notability and I am also concerned about the history of this article. It was tagged as WP:A7 by User:S0091 and was continually removed by the creator inappropriately. User:TheMultimediaHub then stepped in to remove it as more or less their first Wikipedia edit.

I'm now taking this to AfD as it's quite clear that there is still a notability issue here and despite vehement protestation from two users there is still no evidence of notability. There is this in a reputable source but it's written by Johnson so can't be used. Spiderone 19:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://oaccessjamaica.com/2016/11/23/meet-cory-johnson-one-of-the-producers-of-drakes-one-dance-hit-song/ ? No Not a major or reliable publication. Blog. No Just an interview. Notability is based on what other people say about you not what you say about yourself. ✘ No
https://www.prsformusic.com/m-magazine/features/interview-corey-johnson/ No Has an interest in promoting Johnson No No As above ✘ No
https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/14534919.new-cross-music-entrepreneur-corey-johnson-offers-safe-space-away-from-gang-culture-in-south-east-london/ Yes Yes No Mostly an interview ✘ No
https://djmag.com/longreads/inside-uk-drill-factory-london-studio-heart-scene Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
https://metro.co.uk/2020/01/15/i-lost-knee-cap-to-knife-crime-now-i-save-young-people-from-same-fate-12056560/ No Written by Johnson No No Can't contribute towards GNG in any way as written by subject ✘ No
https://grmdaily.com/corey-johnson-beam-interview/ No Has an interest in promoting Johnson ? No Interview ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{ source assess table}}.
Spiderone 10:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

user: Spiderone seems to be on a one man mission to delete this page. All articles relating to this page are valid and from reputable sources Defendersent ( talk) 14:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)— Defendersent ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Hello Spiderone, I have a huge list of coverage for Mr Johnson and if you would like to work with me I can provide many references which you ca aid me to choose which ones should be used Marquis Newell ( talk) 14:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)sock strike Spiderone 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Please post them here and we'll have a look. Spiderone 14:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

He is a real person! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:6A:5AA7:B46C:F55E:2DF0:5927 ( talk) 19:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

That's not the issue. 331dot ( talk) 19:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: To add to the history of this article, the draft was declined twice then rejected on December 7th then again on December 8th. Later on December 8th, Marquis Newell created the article directly in mainspace which was CSD'd under the A7 criteria. They created it again. It was nominated for CSD deletion again. Marquis removed the CSD tag. On December 18th, I tried to do some cleanup, find sources, etc. but ultimately nominated for it CSD again. Marquis removed the tag, I warned them so they added it back but a new account, TheMultimediaHub, removed the tag again. S0091 ( talk) 16:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete While the subject did receive songwriter's credit for One Dance that only meets the first criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN for a composer. DJ Mag is the only WP:RS that provides any significant coverage. All the other sources provided or via a Google search are either not independent (interviews, written by the subject, an advocate for musicians such as PRS/M Magazine) or a WP:BLOG, thus fails WP:GNG. S0091 ( talk) 16:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lacks independent coverage, also WP:BLP1E. Article history feels like a WP:UPE trying to game the system. MrsSnoozyTurtle ( talk) 00:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there are not enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Nicola Bell

Nicola Bell (  | 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 actress, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, No objections to redirecting to Ant McPartlin if desired, Fails NACTOR & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 18:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - ah Byker Grove that takes me back! She's only had one semi-notable role and no other roles to speak of. Clearly fails NACTOR. I don't even think a redirect to Ant McPartlin is necessary as we're not a tabloid newspaper and only report relationships if they were significant. Spiderone 19:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article itself says she’s only done 2 roles. Not notable. Trillfendi ( talk) 23:15, 23 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 Lego Indiana Jones. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Lego Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Brick

Lego Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Brick (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs and not notable film per WP:GNG. Chompy Ace 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Arago Jamal

Arago Jamal (  | 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:NFOOTBALL from what I have found. Firstly, I can't find much in the way of coverage other than routine transfer announcements or announcements saying that he has been named in a squad. His only recorded appearances are in the Kosovo league and the third tier of Finland. He has no senior caps. I have checked World Football, Flashscore, Playmakerstats, GSA, Soccerway and Soccerbase. Spiderone 18:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet our insanely broad inclusion criteria for footballers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:43, 23 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) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Emmett Fitzsimmons

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

No evidence of any significant coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 ( talk) 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SK2242 ( talk) 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SK2242 ( talk) 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, no real RS. His most significant credits were roles on Miami Vice, The Cape, and Ocean Ave., but they are all bit parts. Not much about his police career, either. Caro7200 ( talk) 19:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete his roles do not come even close to rising to the level required by our actor notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 03:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Rock Creek, California

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

Of the two entries, only Rock Creek, Butte County, California seems to be known as "Rock Creek, California". Having the Butte County place at the base title and then hatting to Rock Creek (California) for the streams dab page seems to be the best way to handle this from a navigational perspective. Hog Farm Bacon 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. -- Cewbot ( talk) 00:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Logs: 2009-06 move to → Rock Creek, Butte County, California
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Five Points, California

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

All of the entries except for Five Points, Fresno County, California do not have articles, and all of the non-article ones fail WP:DABMENTION. (Two were recently deleted, the other three have never had articles). This doesn't serve a navigational aid, and the base title should be used for the one linked article. Hog Farm Bacon 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 18:25, 23 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) 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Theresa Grace Mbanefo

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

The before yields primary sources from university routine news. For a college sports person we need at least college hall of fame or something extra ordinary which I guess is missing here per WP:NCOLLATH. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. Kablammo ( talk) 13:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Actually, college athletes just need to meet WP:GNG like anyone else, they don’t need to be in a Hall of Fame or anything of the sort. However, this person doesn’t meet GNG. Rikster2 ( talk) 16:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Rikster2, you may see the point 2 about the college hall of fame as one of the notability criteria for college athletes and coaches☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 21:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, that’s one of the reasons that a college player’s notability can be presumed. If you’ll notice, point 3 says “Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.” That is essentially GNG. Rikster2 ( talk) 21:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I never said WP:GNG is not appropriate as that would have been stupid to say so since every subject irrespective of their niche get governed by WP:GNG, that's why its 'general notability criteria'. My comment was to refer the hall of fame point about which your comment was: they don’t need to be in a Hall of Fame or anything of the sort ☆★ Mamushir ( ✉✉) 16:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The Arbor Academy (computer training school)

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

As (arguably) a school this isn't eligible for A7. This online school does not meet GNG or NCORP. Eostrix  ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 17:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:30, 23 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) 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Dark.fail

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

Article makes no statement of notability. Dark.fail is the name of both an anonymous person and a mysterious organization, neither of which has any reliable and significant coverage. The person has been used very briefly as an anonymous source in a few news articles about larger topics, but did not say anything that contributes to his/her notability. The organization is only visible in minor social media chatter among hackers. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Gal Sun Ho Gaya

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

Fail WP:NF, nothing is found inline. No references. No reviews. Kolma8 ( talk) 16:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 ( talk) 16:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 ( talk) 16:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 ( talk) 17:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - couldn't find anything WP:BEFORE my !vote here. There is almost no information included after eight years since creation, so I doubt there is coverage I'm missing; it isn't so old as to pre-date internet coverage. - 2pou ( talk) 22:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as above, this isn't pre-internet so, if it were notable, there should be reviews and sources online. Probably would have been uncontested at WP:PROD. Spiderone 08:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete verifiability says all articles must have sources. This would apply to a 1912 film as well as 2012. However 2012 is recent enough that the total lack of sources is even more problematic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • The fact that this article has existed since 2012 is a sad sign of how little our verifiability rules are actually enforced. Even sadded, this is only about half as old as the record oldest unsourced article I have seen. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This well-informed discussion has commendably focused on arguments and counter-arguments based on Wikipedia guidelines and supporting evidence. At this point, there does appear to be a very narrow consensus trending in favor of keeping the article, due to the additional sources found during the course of this AfD.  JGHowes  talk 23:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

General Wade Eiling

General Wade Eiling (  | 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 it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Jhenderson777 with no meaningful rationale. Let's try to stay civil, shall we? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nomination is unconvincing as it lacks evidence in support of its assertions. There are obvious alternative to deletion and, as that policy states "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.", that's what we should do. Andrew🐉( talk) 09:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There is coverage for the CW iteration of the character, but I was unable to find coverage for the original comic book version. Dark knight 2149 17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Let this page stay. He is one of the notable Justice League villains even when he made use of a Shaggy Man's body. Plus, @ Andrew Davidson: is right about his suggestion. -- Rtkat3 ( talk) 19:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:ATD is not some kind of magic anti-deletion argument. You have to show how this content can be better used to improve another. Merging pure plot summary generally tends to make articles worse, not better. This fails to meet the standards of WP:GNG. TTN ( talk) 23:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The nomination is convincing as it displays enough evidence in support of its assertions. The article discussed appears to be nothing but a plot summary about an un-encyclopedic comic book character, whose coverage is limited to plot summaries only and nothing else. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 04:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: No amount of editing can make a subject notable if the sources do not exist. The Keep votes do not mention any sources. Article does not have WP:SIGCOV "addressing the topic directly and in detail".   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Normally I would say redirect, but the character has an entry at both Captain Atom#Rogues gallery and List of Justice League enemies, so there is no clear target. Any relevant information can be added in either of those places, but I'm not seeing any sources that would pass GNG, unfortunately. Rhino131 ( talk) 23:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have changed to Keep based on the sources provided below by Daranios, because they contain real-world analysis of the character. I consider the sources to contain enough analysis to pass the minimum standard of GNG (I have a feeling some might argue the sources are still just plot summaries, but I would strongly disagree). Also, if the article is merged this information would have to go with it, and as I said before there is no clear merge target. Therefore the best course is to keep the article. Rhino131 ( talk) 18:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment A reception section has been added, which I consider enough to pass the minimum standards of GNG. I'm not interested in wading into the debate below, but I wanted to reaffirm my keep comment based on the new reception section. Rhino131 ( talk) 16:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the Hollywood Reporter coverage. When comics characters appear in live-action movies and TV, they tend to get some coverage. — Toughpigs ( talk) 16:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because secondary sources indeed do exist. I have added another one that gives characterization, voiding any "there is only plot summary" arguments. In addition, Der Dritte Weltkrieg als Reifeprüfung and Justice League Unlimited and the Politics of Globalization give character analysis and symbolic importance. These together should make for a reasonable Reception and Analysis paragraph. Together with the publication/on-screen history as mentioned by Toughpigs, this can give a significant non-plot portion, satisfying the WP:ALLPLOT requirement. And together with the plot-summary, supported secondary sources, we can have a decent-sized, non-stubby article, which is why we have WP:GNG in the first place. Daranios ( talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • It's indeed is an analytical sentence and not a plot summary. Unfortunately, it seems to be just a sentence, and GNG asks us for a non-trivial, in-depth coverage. I have concerns that a single sentence of analysis still is trivial and does not meet GNG, but I'd totally support merging this referenced sentence of proper analysis into some other article, before this gets deleted. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Of course I would prefer a merge to deletion. But as usual, on this point I am of the opinion that when a source has character analysis, then by its nature it's not trivial, no matter the length. And WP:GNG does not require sigificant coverage within any one source. It requires several sources, and it requires significant coverage overall, as the distinction the guideline makes is whether or not a non-stubby article can be created based on the sources. If the sources I have added alone would not fullfill that, it should be no problem to fullfill that together with the other two sources that have been found, each more detailed than the ones I have already added. So again I remain with my keep opinion. Daranios ( talk) 13:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources provided by Daranios. The article for the subject topic will likely never become good article level and that would be a WP:CMOS issue, but the sources indicate that the subject topic passes GNG standards and is notable. Haleth ( talk) 02:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I am not sure there is enough to establish notability. But enough not to delete but possibly merge instead. Hence why I contested the overprodding. That is my rationale that Piotrus so desperately seeked that I failed to use according to him. So clarifying that. Jhenderson 777 17:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 20:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a lot of content (I don't really like comic-book stuff on Wikipedia in general) but the character definitely exists and there are sources that prove this. jp× g 06:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We have a wonderful large set of articles on related characters in the same comic book universe. It would be a shame to lose individual puzzle pieces by selectively deleting small parts. I would also like to draw your attention to similar AfD nominations for Abel, Cain, and Plastique, where either no consensus was found, or the article was kept due to good improvements. I think some amount of work on this piece can also salvage a good addition to the encyclopedia.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 20:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Redirect - The actual coverage that displays any kind of analysis or commentary that goes beyond plot or casting information is extremely trivial, and is certainly not enough to establish notability for the character. Redirecting it to List of DC Comics characters: G for now, preserving the history in case a merge becomes feasible after the work done on that list by Jhenderson, would also be completely acceptable to me, as well. It should just not be kept as an independent article. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Why do you think that the treatment by e.g. Justice League Unlimited and the Politics of Globalization is "extremely trivial"? Daranios ( talk) 11:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Because its several paragraphs simply summarizing the plots of a couple episodes he was in, and then a single, short paragraph of actual analysis, most of which is still just made up of quotes from the show. The rest of the section on militarism is not actually about him. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for acknowledging the lists. Should be motivation for me to be back on and maybe be more complete on them sometime. Jhenderson 777 12:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 02:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since the beginning of the AfD, a Reception and analysis section based on the already suggested secondary sources has been created, which now amounts to more than "a single sentence of analysis", as Piotrus had critized at an earlier point. Please take this material into account for the delete/merge/keep decision. Daranios ( talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Daranios: Justice League Unlimited and the Politics of Globalization looks very good and discusses the character for at least two paragraphs if not more. One more quality source like this would met GNG requirement for multiple non-trivial coverage and I'd withdraw this nom then. Can we find it? If not, I'd support merging the reception into whatever list summarizes him. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • @ Piotrus: I did not see any more so far. As length of sources is not an end in itself, and for the reasons already outlined, I think the other shorter treatments together are sufficient to fullfill the guidelines in place of one long one. As usual, we can agree to disagree on this point. I am curious how the decision will turn out in this case. Daranios ( talk) 12:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • Non-trivial sources are the only sources that matter. Overstating the importance of trivial sources helps nothing. It just makes an article look like a fluff piece with no substance. TTN ( talk) 15:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply
          • If secondary sources contain something like character analysis, they are not trivial, no matter the length. Daranios ( talk) 14:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
            • If said "analysis" is but a single adjective, then, yes, it is absolutely trivial. If it's otherwise something that cannot be used to pass GNG, then it is trivial. Trivial does not inherently mean unworthy of inclusion if GNG is otherwise satisfied, but it does mean that it alone means nothing to passing GNG. Wikipedia is not all encompassing, so we don't need to bother with something that receives no actual attention. TTN ( talk) 22:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
              • So we are back to the "collectively" or not. Do I understand correctly, that you would go through the reception section one by one, and then say: Each of these sources contains too little to count, each is then trivial by your defintion? And then suddenly a whole paragraph is "trivial". I do not follow that argumentation, because we have a paragraph of non-plot reception information (+ more in the others). And why do we have the requirements of WP:GNG: "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". There is more than half a paragraph there, so why should that be of little value and deleted?
In another vein, if you consider the secondary sources present too little to support a stand-alone article, do you still want to delete it - rather than merge? Your deletion vote based on "pure plot summary" should not be merged still stands, but the state of the article has changed since then. Daranios ( talk) 08:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Of the sources provided, only the one mentioned by Piotrus has any value. The rest could be trashed without losing anything worthwhile. Not all commentary is equal, and some little fluff sentence or sentence fragment is not commentary in my opinion. As for merging, I don't see any benefit in retaining an entire page just because someone added the a source in the last 1% of its existence. You have access to the source, so you can simply add it wherever you see fit. There's no inherent benefit to keeping the page history just for the sake of that, but a redirect is also a suitable enough outcome. TTN ( talk) 15:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Aside from what they give us contentwise, those other sources also help us in providing balance: Two affirm what the most extensive one says about the character, one gives a different characterization. I think not supporting a merge of content based on a secondary source that even you think has some value and bringing in timing (and let's not forget that secondary sources giving publication history have been in the article a long time) are not in keeping with WP:AtD and WP:NEXIST.

Be that as it may, I thank both you and Piotrus for giving your arguments about the newly found sources (which other deletion voters haven't). I am awating with some anticipation what the closer will make of all our arguments. Daranios ( talk) 19:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems, from the discussion here, like article improvement remains ongoing and that further improvement could lead to a clearer sense of notability and so I am giving this a third relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep based particularly on the newly added secondary source coverage. AGFing on the print sources and looking particularly at the IRSF article, there's certainly enough to pass the GNG. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 00:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 19:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Aymane Mourid

Aymane Mourid (  | 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 asserts that he has played one league game for Leganés but this is contradicted by trusted sources. According to Football Database, Playmaker Stats and Soccerway, he has played twice but in the Copa del Rey. These games were against CD Ebro and FC Andorra, neither of which play in a league listed at WP:FPL so he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG as coverage consists entirely of routine transfer news and signing new contracts etc. Spiderone 16:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it is time for us to scrap the ridiculous notability guidelines for footballers and start using something that requires more than one appearance at a minimum. With an actor we do not accept they are notable even for a significant role in a notable production, we require multiple such significant roles. The football guidelines is more like if we accepted every person who had a credited role in a notable film as notable for that. Significant and credited are not the same and we require multiple roles. The sports notability guideliens are crazy. Even the actor notability guidelines as interpreted tend to be too broad. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Hear, hear! Spiderone 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 03:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Foxtrot (compilation)

Foxtrot (compilation) (  | 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 album GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 15:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

At first I thought this was one of Soul Crusher's creations, but this is older. It was created in 2006. Tagged for notability since 2013. The sourcing in the article is crappy - no independent, reliable sources are presented, and The Guardian piece is not about the album, it's an obituary. The album has a plwiki entry as well, and there is no sourcing whatsoever - at the "external links" section, the album cover is presented. During a Google search I couldn't find anything reliable (also, the bland name makes searching difficult). This is an unnotable album. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 15:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 15:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 15:49, 23 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) 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Teacup Dogs Agility Association

Teacup Dogs Agility Association (  | 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. An extensive search has found no sources that meet WP:SIGCOV, a few fleeting mentions can be found in some news articles and the like, such as this WSJ article, but nothing that “addresses the topic directly and in detail”. Cavalryman ( talk) 15:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

* Support deleting I was also looking for sources on this organisation while editing another article, found nothing. -- LoraxJr — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

* Support delete as per nominator. William Harris (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not seeing any reason to pass WP:GNG nor any other measure. No basic sources provided... would change my position if good sources were presented.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no independent sources in the page, no sign of any in-depth coverage via Gbooks, Scholar or JSTOR, does not begin to satisfy WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 11:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Person High School

Person High School (  | 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:NSCHOOL. Lettler hello • contribs 15:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lettler hello • contribs 15:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lettler hello • contribs 15:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Creator seems to be adding lots of non-notable schools, mostly in draftspace - see Draft:Roxboro Community School, Draft:Bethel Hill Charter School. Pahunkat ( talk) 20:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is clearly a non-notable high school with just WP:MILL news coverage about it. There's nothing that passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG about it. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 20:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete we used to assume any high school that currently existed was notable by default. We have since realized this is not the case, and now require sourcing that would pass at least a minimum understanding of GNG, which is clearly lacking in this case. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Adana-Mersin metropolitan area

Adana-Mersin metropolitan area (  | 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 no such metropolitan area in Turkey and this term has no unofficial, official, academic etc. usage. An example for WP:ORIGINAL. -- evolutionoftheuniverse @enwiki 15:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete. -- evolutionoftheuniverse @enwiki 15:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. evolutionoftheuniverse @enwiki 15:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete The Turkish article has been nominated for deletion too. The first person to react has said the necessary things: there is almost no source that mentions the existence of this area and the ones that do are small publications (Haber7) and a book to learn Turkish. The Adana Province and the Mersin Province are two different areas that have no real meaning when merged together. ~Styyx Talk? ^-^ 14:13, 25 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. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain ( talk) 01:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Erika Weaver

Erika Weaver (  | 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:NPOLITICIAN, as she was not elected to office. Lettler hello • contribs 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler hello • contribs 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lettler hello • contribs 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lettler hello • contribs 14:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win. To qualify for an article without having to win the election and serve in Congress, she would have to either (a) show that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway (which being a member of a local school board is not), or (b) show such an unusually large volume and depth and range of coverage, expanding far beyond just what every candidate in every election can always show, that she would have a credible claim to being much more special than most other candidates in some way that would pass the ten year test for enduring significance. This article is not passing either of those tests, however. Bearcat ( talk) 16:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Outside of losing the election, no notability. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Let it get Published I think that she has enough notability, even search in Google has her information. She deserves a Wikipedia article page for herself. She is a politician, well known and even has stood in elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Maverick ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Standing in elections is not in and of itself what gets a politician into Wikipedia. Winning elections, and thereby serving in a notable political office, is. Bearcat ( talk) 14:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 15:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Walid Rhailouf

Walid Rhailouf (  | 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:NFOOTBALL; has 22 appearances apparently but I can't find any source to back that up. Chabab have only just been promoted so it's likely that any games will have been 2nd tier, so not in a league at WP:FPL. I have checked football database, Besoccer and Kooora. Spiderone 14:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 15:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Anass Nouader

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

I spent some time fixing this article as it was a complete mess and then realised that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL anyway as his appearances were in the 2nd tier of Morocco and the 5th tier of France, neither of which are listed at WP:FPL. It doesn't look like he passes WP:GNG.

No appearances listed at Soccerway, GSA or Soccerpunter. I added footballdatabase.eu to the page but this only shows appearances for last season, when Chabab were playing in a semi-pro league (Botola 2). Spiderone 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails [[WP:GNG}} and {{WP:NFOOTY]] -- John B123 ( talk) 15:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It is time we stopped letting one-line articles with no substance sit forever when they do not meet even minimum inclusion criteria. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:42, 23 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) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

India A Team Triangular Series in 2015

India A Team Triangular Series in 2015 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this really notable? There's lots of discussion going on about WP:CRIN at the moment but I think we can all agree that this article wouldn't pass WP:CRIN as CRIN currently is. Furthermore the article also fails WP:GNG. Could be wrong though so all views welcome. CreativeNorth ( talk) 14:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Another A-Team/U19 tour article created by the same user. All of these tours are below the top level for international matches, with many of them already being deleted ( one, two). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep the articles in CricketCountry and the Hindu suggest to me that there is some overall coverage of this tournament, so I can see a case for just about keeping it. There is no real guidance on this sort of article and whether it should or should not be included as far as I'm aware, so the overview coverage is my guideline here. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 22:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Lugnut's rationale. Onel5969 TT me 01:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

IBM Spectrum Control

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Jcarlosmartins ( talk) 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Not notable, should be deleted. There are no independent sources, and the article is more like a product description from an IBM brochure than an encyclopedia article. PopePompus ( talk) 07:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am not familiar with this product as I was with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM Tivoli Storage Manager, that aside all the google book hits I found are primary, and did not find significant non primary mentions of the product elsewhere. Jeepday ( talk) 19:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Again (as the 2 other AfDs on IBM products nominated on this date) notable to be sure in its field, and a very possible search term for WP readers - this product should have an encyclopedia article here.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 00:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Concertmusic You may or may not be correct about this. But your argument will hold more weight if you can find references that support it meeting WP:GNG, adding those references to the article and making a note here that you did so, will go a long way to supporting your position. Jeepday ( talk) 18:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, or redirect to an appropriate page as a second choice. The article cites no notability sources (reliable independent secondary sources with substantial coverage), and a BEFORE search revealed no such sources either. Although many Google Books results came up, all of the ones I could find are primary (published by IBM itself), which disqualifies them from being notability sources. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Urban Alliance Foundation

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

Promo for a non-notable organization, apparently co-founded by Jeffrey Zients. I see virtually no independent, secondary sources. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I do not see any claims in the article that would meet WP:ORG, A quick search for references did not find anything meet it either. Yes it exists and yes it does things, but that does not make it notable. Jeepday ( talk) 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article could use some updating, as the organization has expanded into other markets, such as Chicago, and the piece could quote some achievement numbers. It does seem to be a topic that a reader would want to look up.-- Concertmusic ( talk) 00:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Jeepday's comments. ~ HAL 333 20:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - some press releases, but not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 01:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Missvain ( talk) 03:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

The Mistletoe Inn

The Mistletoe Inn (  | 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 television film, did not receive significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 13:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

find it curios that during Christmas, these movies are deemed to be deleted. These times, they bring joy to people. Savolya ( talk) 13:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - no real coverage by critics, but one nomination on a minor movie award, Leo Awards. Kolma8 ( talk) 16:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete One of dozens of these Hallmark movies that come out yearly, fluff pieces. One isn't more notable than the rest unless it wins an award. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Non Delete - why not delete Blockbuster movies like Alligator II: The Mutation if your logic continues Savolya ( talk) 13:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Alligator II: The Mutation has coverage by independent sources, as indicated in the article. This one does not. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not meet any criteria listed at WP:NFILM and the coverage is insufficient for WP:GNG Spiderone 19:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Wishbone Ash members. MBisanz talk 03:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Roger Filgate

Roger Filgate (  | 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 is about a musician who has played in an undoubtedly notable band, but I can't find any evidence of independent notability. It's currently supported by two sources, both of them affiliated - one is an archived copy of the band's website, the other is the now-defunct personal website of another musician he played with. I've searched for better sourcing, but aside from affiliated websites, I can't find anything that gives him significant coverage - lots of namechecks in reviews/articles about the band, but nothing about him specifically - I'm not convinced that he is independently notable. GirthSummit (blether) 13:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 13:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 13:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Wishbone Ash. He was a member of the long-running band for a few years, long after their glory days, and that can be mentioned at their article. Otherwise the nominator is correct about a lack of notability for all of the guitarist's other endeavors, as his other recordings attracted no reliable notice and he can only be found in pro musician directories and databases. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
On further investigation, List of Wishbone Ash members would probably be a better redirect target. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 16:30, 23 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. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain ( talk) 01:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Achraf Gharib

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

The subject has not made an appearance for either Malaga nor his current club, who play in the semi-professional Botola 2. Hence, he fails WP:NFOOTBALL's requirement to have played a full professional match. Modussiccandi ( talk) 12:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 12:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 12:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 12:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 12:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:46, 23 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. MBisanz talk 03:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hardy bros

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

I can't find any evidence that this WWE team exists. There is The Hardy Boyz, of course, but I can't find anything about Hardy bros/Hardybros. Possible hoax? Spiderone 11:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - related edits here but, again, I can't find sources to back this up Spiderone 11:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as hoax or editing test? LM2000 ( talk) 13:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Previous version of this article didn't mention that this is about a team involving Matt Riddle that just debuted, not the original team with Matt Hardy. Switching to Delete because it's WP:TOOSOON. LM2000 ( talk) 13:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment doesn't seem to be a hoax, see [17] and [18]. It's not the sourcing I'd like to have an article; this is pro wrestling. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - two wrestlers who have only teamed once or twice - obviously notable individually but no notability as a team -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 20:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Play the Game (song). Missvain ( talk) 03:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

A Human Body

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

While it gets lots of mentions, not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not pass WP:NSONG. Could be redirected to The Game (Queen album)#Track listing, but an editor continues to insist on recreating the article. Onel5969 TT me 11:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect and protect to avoid yet another recreation. Fails WP:NSONG - non-notable B-side, with no reliable sources at all... the only reliable source cited in the article doesn't mention the song at all. Everything else is links to fan sites or Discogs to show that it was a B-side and later included on an expanded version of the album, i.e. it exists. None of the sources verify the dates of the song's writing or recording, or what its subject matter is. The only substantial content is a quote by the record's producer, taken from a fan site, which only says that the song's writer was convinced by other members of the band not to include it on the album, and that the song is "a good demonstration" of the sound achieved on this and subsequent albums. Nothing indicates any notability for this song. Richard3120 ( talk) 13:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per Richard3120. GhostDestroyer100 ( talk) 15:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and protect (redirect to Play the Game (song)) An obscure track with little coverage in terms of composition and lyrics. Protect the page so that the article won't be created again. HĐ ( talk) 16:04, 24 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. Consensus was definitely keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 01:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Caucasian Albanian catholicoi

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

Almost unsourced, impossible to verify the content since there are no existing original sources. Those that are verifiable are Catholicoi of Catholicosate of the Armenian Apostolic Church. Article serves no purpose then misleading the reader. Addictedtohistory ( talk) 10:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and add verification/citation needed template, there are sources in Russian and Armenian Wikipedias that can be used for the article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան ( talk) 10:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
WP:CITENEED was added since 2013. Armenian WP [ [19]] states "Աղվանից եկեղեցի. Հայաստանյայց առաքելական եկեղեցու մի թևը" (Aguank church, a see of Armenian Apostolic Church), not Caucasian Albanian. The Russian WP states "В списке представлены католикосы автокефальной церкви Кавказской Албании, а с начала VIII века автономного[1] Албанского (Агванского) католикосата Армянской Церкви" (The list presents catholicoi of Caucasian Albania, and from 8th century autonomous Aghuank Catholicosate of Armenian Apostolic Church), that is not Caucasian Albanian, hence most of the list is in english article is disputed. Russian and english lists do not even coincide. Addictedtohistory ( talk) 11:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with warning templates. A list of heads of the ancient Church of Caucasian Albania belongs in Wikipedia. The other language versions could be used for sources and/or corrections. Meanwhile, the reader is warned not to rely on the list and asked to improve it. The subject is a bit esoteric, so it may take time to get the improvements. Some parts of the list will always be controversial, and the article should state that. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article presents a list of mostly catholicoi of Armenian Apostolic Church, or in best case not verifiable, as Caucasian Albanian. The sources, as suggested in other wiki languages, do not support that. Addictedtohistory ( talk) 13:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep: There are many sources for the continuing lineage of the church for 1500 years from 4th century until 1828 AD. The overlapping with certain periods with the Armenian Apostolic Church is that for many political reasons, the church came under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Apostolic church and its catholicoi were at times appointed or elected by that church. But for many other periods, and this is made clear in the list, the church was an autocephaly. So the list is not identical with Armenian catholicoi, but parallel sometimes overlapping for obvious reasons, but the listing tries to keep the continuous lineage of the church intact. The listing can always be improved and verified, but deleting the lineage of church leaders doesn't serve a purpose except scrapping history of what is actually a Christian "Azerbaijan" when there was no "Azerbaijan" whatsoever and it was actually a Christian nation. It was formally abolished again for political reasons by the Russian authorities and closely related to the Russo-Persian War (1826-1828). werldwayd ( talk) 14:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but split the article into autocephalous church era and under Armenian Apostolic church (catholicosate of Aghvank) era list articles, which would be much less misleading than the current version and would make finding citations relatively easier. - Kevo327 ( talk) 16:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
User:Kevo327 Would you mind doing that, when you got time? Do you have any sources that can substantiate the listed names of catholicoi? Addictedtohistory ( talk)17:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Addictedtohistory: please use the reply template for ease of communication. While I don't have any sources now I will definitely look into it in my spare time, we can also reorganise or split the article once it's sufficiently sourced, if another consensus isn't reached. - Kevo327 ( talk) 23:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per others. --► Sincerely: Sola Virum 17:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep -- I take this to be in effect a list of archbishops, which we certainly ought to have. The article gives its source as a particular chronicle. My guess is that this is the sole source for some of this, in which case we will not be able to do much better. Differences between Russian and Armenian WP could be issues of transliteration. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Valid topic, and is reasonably sourced. Grand master 20:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NBISHOP-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 05:09, 27 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. MBisanz talk 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Leopold Zerr

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

A well-written article about someone who turns out to lack the necessary notability for an article. The only source about Zerr is an obituary in the Catholic Herald, basically a newspaper from his employer (so not independent), and even then this is short, and mentions his music in one sentence. [20] There are no other sources about Zerr, his music, or other aspects of his life; e.g. the book about Henri Leclercq doesn't mention Zerr [21], and neither does the Religious Persecution one [22]. He gets a very passing mention in the Catholic Archives [23] and an equally passing mention in the Caecilia [24]. And that's it. [25] Fram ( talk) 09:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 09:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Standard WP:GNG failure. SK2242 ( talk) 11:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Rather puff-ish piece about a non-notable musician. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - although articles like this make me sad to cast this vote. Well-written article, about an interesting historical character. Unfortunately they simply do not meet WP's notably criteria as per WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 TT me 01:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing based on an early consensus. Missvain ( talk) 01:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Abdulhakim Idris

Abdulhakim Idris (  | 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 stub about a non-notable individual whose only claim to fame relates to organisations of dubious notability (albeit with grandiose titles, fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 08:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:14, 23 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. Michig ( talk) 13:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Prabhakar Chaudhary

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

This page does not establish notability, and also does not have a neutral tone, which is particularly problematic for a BLP. PopePompus ( talk) 07:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Also POV tone in the article. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 10:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:BASIC; Wikipedia does not need to document every single police officer that has ever featured in a news story of some sort Spiderone 12:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Don't DeleteHi PopePompus, Prabhakar Chaudhary is a famous police officer in India. I would like to suggest, please search on Google or visit to government website [1].

I think this page should not be deleted. Anuj Sharma (IPS), this is also police officer. My English is very week😄. Thanks. Shabeelko — Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Please read WP:BIO as it gives you a good idea of what sort of people are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Nobody is denying that this person exists but there is nothing to suggest that they are notable enough to have their own article. If there are more sources available then please show them to us but I was not able to find anything hugely significant in a Google search. Spiderone 12:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  1. give me some days, I provide sources as you wanted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabeelko ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Some of the citations are, to say the least, bigged up. For example [26] is a search on the Times of India website, the articles listed are about the film industry. [27] is another search, this time on the First Post website that lists one relevant article - but that article is not about Prabhakar Chaudhary - it is about an incident where Prabhakar Chaudhary was the journalist's source as to what happened.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete NPOV throughout, does not pass WP:NBIO due to coverage consisting of WP:ROUTINE events. MrsSnoozyTurtle ( talk) 22:32, 25 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. MBisanz talk 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Karthik Kodakandla

Karthik Kodakandla (  | 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 composer, Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO

Ref #1,2,6,7 are music sites and #5 is a search in Times of India with no articles. Ref #3 and 4 mention that he had composed music for two films but both the films are seemingly non-notable. Ab207 ( talk) 07:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ab207 ( talk) 07:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 ( talk) 07:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 ( talk) 12:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Agree that the sources in the article are not significant coverage but have you done a WP:BEFORE ? Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I've searched Telugu-language sources as well but there is nothing significant. -- Ab207 ( talk) 04:55, 24 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. Consensus is that the article needs cleanup, not deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Nitrome

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

Page itself fails WP:OR, WP:GNG, WP:SPS (most of their sources especially the website, like the blogs), and WP:NCORP. These sources are mostly unreliable, and some of them are reliable which does not count notability. Chompy Ace 06:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 06:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 06:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chompy Ace 06:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:NEXIST, massive reliable source, Gamasutra interview, Gamasutra source, other reliable source ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 16:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Zxcvbnm, the PG.biz and Gamasutra sources are all interviews, so they wouldn't count towards notability. Techraptor is unreliable per WP:VG/RS. I need to check deeper but a shallow search does not justify GNG. IceWelder [ ✉] 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • @ IceWelder: As far as I can tell they are partially interviews and have some commentary about the studio, too. Anyway, if people disagree with me then I won't try to argue further, but personally I feel the studio is probably notable, although the sources in the article now are all primary. The fact that nom "did not find any reliable source" shows that a WP:BEFORE was probably not performed correctly, which casts doubt on the rationale. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 18:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • I'll be looking into it later. Definitely, though, the article needs some WP:TNT. IceWelder [ ✉] 19:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • The interview sources as presented in their specific publications are secondary in nature for this purpose. Yes, we have to be careful about businesses and interviews being used for COI-pushing, but these are clearly interviews that the RSes have conducted and indicated the secondary nature of these works (the source leading the questioning). -- Masem ( t) 17:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I found more non-trivial coverage of it in GameSpy [28] and in a book [29] (although there is a lot of quotation about what the Nitrome's founder said). Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ZXCVBNM. KingSkyLord ( talk | contribs) 03:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Missvain ( talk) 03:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Rowan Grebe

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

This fails WP:NSPORT which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Notability not established with substantive sources for continued bulk-creation of non-notable perma-substubs. Reywas92 Talk 06:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the relevant "list of..." article. Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations", which is now what is happening. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. This has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. I'm not convinced that, given the usual outcome, that it's a good idea to be sending this sort of article to AfD. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm going to be honest and say their is a thing call WP:BOLD where you could just redirect it (after doing a WP:BEFORE check). Also yeah it passes WP:NCRIC but until it reaches enough to have it's own separate article. I would say to Redirect HawkAussie ( talk) 03:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The only sources we have are databases which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. wjemather please leave a message... 12:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Missvain ( talk) 03:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Glen Granger

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

This fails WP:NSPORT which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Notability not established with substantive sources. Reywas92 Talk 06:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the relevant "list of..." article. Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations", which is now what is happening. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. This has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. I'm not convinced that, given the usual outcome, that it's a good idea to be sending this sort of article to AfD. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The only sources we have are databases which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. wjemather please leave a message... 12:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Missvain ( talk) 03:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Dudley Gradwell

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

This fails WP:NSPORT which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Notability not established with substantive sources. Reywas92 Talk 06:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the relevant "list of..." article. Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations", which is now what is happening. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. This has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. I'm not convinced that, given the usual outcome, that it's a good idea to be sending this sort of article to AfD. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The only sources we have are databases which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. wjemather please leave a message... 12:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. Missvain ( talk) 03:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Peter Ryan (cricketer)

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

This fails WP:NSPORT which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Notability not established with substantive sources. Reywas92 Talk 06:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the relevant "list of..." article. Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations", which is now what is happening. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Lugnuts (and WP:TROUT to Reywas92 for flooding AfD with nominations like this). Deus et lex ( talk) 11:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Untrout please, and perhaps trout Lugnuts instead. Yesterday I redirected three such articles to lists, only to have them reverted by Lugnits [30] [31] [32]: the subsequent AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gale, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Anderson, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gorton (cricketer), are at the moment all heading for deletion. It shouldn't come as a surprise then if the next day, someone decides to not bother with the redirects and to take them straight to AfD instead. If Lugnuts now agrees that redirection is the better option for these, then perhaps such AfDs aren't necessary any longer in many cases. As for flooding, when you deal with thousands of pages being created, you can't undo the issue at a rate of one per day or so. "Flooding" would be creating 100 Afds, not 6 or so (like Reywas did). Lugnuts created 40 cricket biographies on 21 December, of which some, perhaps most, are notable players, but also including things like Errol Eichstadt and Wayne Fensham. If people flood enwiki with "indiscriminate or excessive creations", one shouldn't complain that this leads to a large number of AfDs, certainly not when only the day before they made it clear that they didn't agree with redirecting such articles. Fram ( talk) 11:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Untrouted, and apologies. I still maintain a redirect is appropriate. Deus et lex ( talk) 22:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. This has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. I'm not convinced that, given the usual outcome, that it's a good idea to be sending this sort of article to AfD. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Very weak keep or redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. Seems he played in England (Waterlooville and Hampshire 2nds) for a couple of seasons, but sources are entirely insufficient (incidental/routine sports coverage) to establish notability. However it may be reasonable to expect better may exist given coverage usually afforded to cricket in the Brisbane and wider Queensland press. wjemather please leave a message... 14:09, 24 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. consensus is that subject passes GNG and NCRIC (non-admin closure) Smartyllama ( talk) 13:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Lance Druery

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

This fails WP:NSPORT which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Notability not established with substantive sources. Reywas92 Talk 06:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jevansen's work, below. At worst, redirect to the relevant "list of..." article. Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations", which is now what is happening. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG, see link to search results on newspaper archive. Jevansen ( talk) 09:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think there's enough here to meet GNG requirements. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - new sources mean there is enough to pass GNG. Thank you Jevansen for your great work on improving the article. Deus et lex ( talk) 23:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The sources are insufficient to establish notability but it is reasonable to expect others may exist. wjemather please leave a message... 13:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a cursory look at the archive linked above clearly shows enough coverage for a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 13:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, passes WP:CRIC (currently), and also passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama ( talk) 13:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

George Cooper (cricketer)

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

This fails WP:NSPORT which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Notability not established with substantive sources. Reywas92 Talk 06:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the expansion work post-nom. Worst case is to redirect to the relevant "list of..." article. Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations", which is now what is happening. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article has been expanded this morning with multiple sources so no need to redirect, although the player should be included in the Queensland list anyway. Cooper played in two first-class matches and is rightly presumed notable. Lugnuts is right to assert that AfD is being flooded with indiscriminate or excessive nominations by deletionists who do not understand the concept of presumed notability. No Great Shaker ( talk) 12:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    @ No Great Shaker: Please keep your comments relevant to this discussion. Ad hominem attacks on other contributors are not acceptable. wjemather please leave a message... 12:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Ad hominem relates to a particular person, which is its literal meaning, not a group or movement. It is evident in the NCRIC forum that some of the deletionists do not understand the concept or application of presumed notability. I've removed the other bit, however, as that is less evident. No Great Shaker ( talk) 14:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Firstly, I appreciate your (grudging) retraction of the claim that we are here because of people who "hate cricket", but please strikeout rather than refactor comments (especially those that have been responded to). Secondly, stop using the term "deletionist" in a derogatory manner. Finally, AFD is where the presumption of notability is tested, and substantial sources should be sought to demonstrate that presumption was valid; as such, asserting that the subject played in matches so is "rightly presumed notable" is not an argument that gets us anywhere. wjemather please leave a message... 14:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think there's just about enough here for meet the GNG. It's not perfect, but given that playing at Sheffield Shield level is reasonably notable in itself, I'm happy to keep this. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 18:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per No Great Shaker and Blue Square Thing. Enough sources to pass GNG. Deus et lex ( talk) 22:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep or redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The sources are insufficient to establish notability but it is reasonable to expect others exist. wjemather please leave a message... 13:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG after expansion. Störm (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG, also, this spate of AfD's regarding cricket players while there is an ongoing discussion seems a bit premature. Perhaps they should have waited until that discussion is concluded. Onel5969 TT me 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Bungletown, Virginia

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

Another confusing one. The name appears on some recent topos, but there's nothing at the site. Coordinates are in the middle of dense woods. 4 results for Bungletown in Albemarle County, VA newspapers.com hits: one passing mentions and three references to a road. Old 1981 USGS directory [33] calls it a locale. Mindat [34] suggets it's related to Unionville, Virginia somehow, but that's in another county. I just cannot figure out what this possibly is/was. Hog Farm Bacon 06:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 06:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can find no significant coverage of a settlement by this name in reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • delete The "Unionville" connection is that older topos show a vague area of houses, with a church, just south of where this Bungletown appears afterwards, with that label. Maps that show Bungletown don't show anything like a town, so I have to say this fails verification as anything other than a locale. Mangoe ( talk) 17:07, 23 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. MBisanz talk 03:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of Indonesian people with COVID-19

List of Indonesian people with COVID-19 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players diagnosed with COVID-19, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with coronavirus disease 2019 was deleted. Kanghuitari ( talk) 06:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Not all of these people even have articles of their own on the English Wikipedia. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Numerous Wikipedians here have stated about "consensus" that is reached but I don't know about the consensus. Perhaps the consensus is reached somewhere, but I suggest the consensus should be added into the discussion as no consensus is ever reached, on the main page of COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia or on the page going to be deleted. There is never a discussion about removing the list, a look on talk pages on both pages can easily prove this.

First of, the page is created as the consensus on COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia decided that the tables are unwieldy and getting too big for the size of the article, and have to be moved somewhere else. The list of people has been maintained since the pandemic begun, and the creation of the page is done as the list is too big.

Second, I disagree with Foxnpichu that the list could not be maintained. As far as my knowledge, the list is maintained quite accurately. All of the sources in the article is well-sourced. Responding to Metropolitan90, while it is true that lots of the people in the article will fail the notability requirement, some of the people in here just have no page because nobody creates the page. For instance, Dudung Duswara is one of the Chief Justice in Indonesia, a prominent position for sure, but he didn't have his own article. I have to add also that multiple templates for cases/county in multiple states are not adequately maintained and updated, as most updates ended up on July 2020, and still does not stand as a ground for the deletion of said templates.

In response to User:Lugnuts could you elaborate on what are you going to do with your hands? I see no argument in your motion here. SunDawn ( talk) 04:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Per SunDawn. Flix11 ( talk) 08:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is created to not burden the overwhelming main article and may be interesting or important facts of the COVID-19 pandemic progress in the country. The rest have been said by SunDawn. HiChrisBoyleHere ( talk) 10:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Geschichte ( talk) 22:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Foxnpichu. EPIC STYLE ( LET'S TALK) 03:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The closing remarks to "List of people with coronavirus disease 2019" AfD do a good job of stating the considerations here. Tl;dr: lists of deaths yes, lists of infections no - for reasons of WP:BLP, maintainability, and encyclopedic usefulness. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - despite the slight canvassing by SunDawn, I think that Elmidae's remarks are extemely cogent. And props to Lugnuts, who for the second time in the last two weeks has made me laugh out loud at an AfD. Onel5969 TT me 01:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Carden, Kentucky

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

Rennick calls it a locale but doesn't say anything about what it was. Topos show two buildings where a gravel road cross the L & N railroad. No results on newspapers.com when searching for Carden in Barren County, KY papers. History of Barren County book I found online doesn't mention it [35]. This mentions a Carden Station in the relative location of this place. WP:GNG isn't met and I don't think WP:GEOLAND is, either. Hog Farm Bacon 05:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 05:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Justmop

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

entirely reliant on sources that do not meet WP:NCORP: some are just notices of funding, the others, including the National, are promotional interviews that are not truly independent. The user's contributions and deleted contributions raise the possibility of COI. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teckpert DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, fails NCORP. The National and Saudi Gazette are real but I'm not sure about the other sources in the article. ☆ Bri ( talk) 03:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete precisely as nominated; fails to establish any claim, let alone proof, of notability. Not to mention, the entire article contents belong on the company's marketing materials, not in an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 07:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 01:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to 1919 Rhode Island State Rams football team. Histmerge was performed to merge the two article versions. Eagles  24/7  (C) 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

1919 Rhode Island Rams football team

1919 Rhode Island Rams football team (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

duplicate of 1919 Rhode Island State Rams football team Joeykai ( talk) 02:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of films based on Marvel Comics publications#Lego films. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Lego Marvel Super Heroes: Avengers Reassembled

Lego Marvel Super Heroes: Avengers Reassembled (  | 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 webseries, does not have significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:GNG BOVINEBOY 2008 01:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I can't find any independent coverage of this web series at all: zero reviews, no news articles, no book or newspaper hits. All I was able to find were a few tv listings, nothing that would show that this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Only current source in the article is a clip hosted on marvel's website. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 02:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I would also be fine with a Redirect to List of films based on Marvel Comics publications#Lego films, as suggested by Some Dude From North Carolina. I don't think it's appropriate to merge this content into a list article. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 02:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 03:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 03:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Isak Angerstig

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

Notability concerns. I declined a CSD but don't see enough notability to keep this article. References are to floorball (a variant of bandy) organizations. I don't see any substantial coverage of them. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 01:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following articles as they are created similarly and have the same rationale for deletion:

Cam Keener (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dan Torretta (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. Floorball players receive almost no coverage in independent media organizations not affiliated with floorball thus failing WP:GNG. For Torretta I found this and this in terms of promotional local coverage, showing that even top-level players in this sport do not attract significant coverage. Kges1901 ( talk) 02:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 03:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, WP:TOOSOON in that the sport itself has not caught on. It's bigger in Sweden though. Geschichte ( talk) 22:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a non-notable football player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - even though he's not a football player, floorball is not a sport which gets a lot of coverage, and this person does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT. Onel5969 TT me 01:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Faulkner USA

Faulkner USA (  | 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 company made by an editor with a clear COI. Fails WP:COMPANY. Jay Jay What did I do? 01:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jay Jay What did I do? 01:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jay Jay What did I do? 01:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I see no significant coverage of this company in independent, reliable sources that would enable it to pass WP:NCORP. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:NCORP. Any coverage is run-of-the-mill, and the article reads like an advertising brochure. -- Kinu  t/ c 06:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to D2L. Merge if there is anything of value and redirect accordingly. Missvain ( talk) 04:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

John Baker (entrepreneur)

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

Subject might not have substantial enough independent coverage. It includes self/company published with the rest being award specific, WP:OR or his school. Needs cleanup if article is kept. Swil999 ( talk) 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Swil999 ( talk) 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Swil999 ( talk) 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to D2L if that company is truly notable. I object to the notion that he is even borderline notable as a philanthropist unless independent reliable sources devote significant coverage to him as a philanthropist. Charity board directories are far from enough, since they are not independent. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - to D2L, since he is mentioned there. There is nothing worth merging into the company article. Onel5969 TT me 01:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Zico (footballer). Missvain ( talk) 22:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Zico

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

None of these players were the top goalscorers of their country at any point in their careers. Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because for the same reason:

List of international goals scored by Arjen Robben (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Gary Lineker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Olivier Giroud (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Kazimierz Deyna (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Milan Baroš (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Alex Morgan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Neymar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Romário (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Ronaldinho (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Edinson Cavani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of international goals scored by Ronaldo (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unbundling AfD  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Una, California

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

Once it shows up on the topos, it is shown to be the same long passing siding as today cuts diagonally across the grid of farms and orchards. There is no evidence there was ever a notable settlement here. Mangoe ( talk) 21:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Although searching is complicated by some Spanish language search terms, I see no evidence that this is a notable community. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gary Lineker. Missvain ( talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Gary Lineker

List of international goals scored by Gary Lineker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:03, 23 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Steve Hoffman (businessman)

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

The subject of the article requests deletion:

Steve Hoffman's bio is about me. As anyone can see, it's hopelessly outdated. Is it possible to either updated it or remove it. I'd prefer to have it removed since it's not being maintained. Thanks. Captainhoff ( talk) 00:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The subject has previously requested deletion in 2018 [36] [37] and in 2019 [38] [39].

I was unable to find any independent coverage of him. Could not locate the cited "Television Week" interview, so this is also a delete from me.

– Thjarkur (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a candidate for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this was kept at a different time, the article just contains two press releases (which are the same) and an interview to a dead link. I cannot see any coverage which would show notability. Dylsss( talk contribs) 01:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Leading a number of non-notable companies is not itself a recipe for individual notability. BD2412 T 01:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as-is, this is a resume sourced to press releases. No sign of substantial coverage. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 02:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per all of the above. Shearonink ( talk) 02:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not Notable. Maybe he will meet the bar one day but today is not that day Slywriter ( talk) 03:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doubt he is notable and also The subject of the article had requested deleting it but I would have voted to delete or to have nominated it for deletion even if the subject never requested deleting it 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 ( talk) 11:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Dylsss. Mini apolis 00:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Olivier Giroud. Missvain ( talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Olivier Giroud

List of international goals scored by Olivier Giroud (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Bait30: Yeah, I agree. Let's just incubate this in draft space for now. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 22:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kazimierz Deyna. Missvain ( talk) 22:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Kazimierz Deyna

List of international goals scored by Kazimierz Deyna (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:02, 23 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) 22:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Alex Morgan

List of international goals scored by Alex Morgan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect back to parent article per recent AFD consensus (see e.g. this and this. Giant Snowman 22:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep - based on comments below and elsewhere, probably merits a separate article. Giant Snowman 17:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 107 goals in the list, no way should this be merged back. In fact, cleaned up and the lead expanded on this is FL material. Govvy ( talk) 10:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Alex Morgan's article is already very large so I don't think merging this back would be appropriate. This seems like a sensible fork. I also think that 100 international goals is a significant achievement so a stand-alone list is justifiable. Spiderone 10:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per featured list examples: List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach + List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo. Hmlarson ( talk) 01:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Those articles have fully fleshed out lead sections filled with sources, unlike the Alex Morgan one. Also, Abby Wambach and C. Ronaldo are both the top scorers for their nations, unlike Alex Morgan.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 20:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Right, and you think the same won't be done for one of the most globally-known players? Please. Hmlarson ( talk) 18:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
These international goal lists have been controversial since they started but I see no reason why Alex Morgan wouldn't warrant one. It's too large to be in the article and her goalscoring exploits have had enough coverage, in my view. If anything, we need more of these (e.g. Carli Lloyd and Mia Hamm) so we should be expanding rather than trimming these. Spiderone 15:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to parent article per above comments. I believe the consensus is for a merge or redirect for all similar articles.   //  Timothy ::  talk  20:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ TimothyBlue: There is no direct consensus, scorer lists are normally content forked when too big for the main article. Putting this back in can break the data size and would make a good chunk of the article unreadable too many mobile brands. I also feel you should review some of your other comments on these AfD articles and look at the size of each article. Govvy ( talk) 21:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I also agree that this had to be judged on basis independent of other AfDs. Mohanabhil ( talk) 06:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge don't see why Alex Morgan should have this kind of page, if it's deleted for other footballers.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 18:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Over 100 goals should warrant a separate page per content forking, and as it is the parent article is large. -- SuperJew ( talk) 12:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the "top per-country" rule seems stupid to me. If we're going to have these pages at all, it should be fine to have them for anyone in the all-time top 10. With over 100, there's a clear size argument to split this from the main article on Alex Morgan. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep well-referenced, easily meets GNG, too big for Alex Morgan. Nfitz ( talk) 18:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Milan Baroš. MBisanz talk 18:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Milan Baroš

List of international goals scored by Milan Baroš (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:02, 23 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) 22:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Neymar

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

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect back to parent article per recent AFD consensus (see e.g. this and this. Giant Snowman 22:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am more inclined to keep this out of the main article, as that is already fairly big. I feel the lead needs expanding on, note some more specifics, along the lines like on Ibrahimović list. I don't see much else wrong, I feel this is valid use of WP:CONTENTFORK. Govvy ( talk) 10:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to parent article per above comments. I believe the consensus is for a merge or redirect for all similar articles.   //  Timothy ::  talk  20:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete outright, do not merge. The parent article already contains a brief summary of this information, and that is (more than) enough. This list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and should never have been created in the first place; the list of goals belongs not in an encyclopaedia, but on a fansite or similar. This applies to all these lists, including featured ones such as List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach and List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo. We also should not have List of 100 meter dashes by Usain Bolt or List of pole vaults by Sergey Bubka. Editors need to learn to summarize this information instead of exhaustively enumerating each example. To put it another way, we should strive to write Climate of London, not List of rainy days in London. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • An international goal is not even remotely comparable to a 100 meter dash. Scoring an international goal is a pretty big deal, and is relatively uncommon (given the nature of international football). A 100 meter dash is a fixed event, which would be comparable to maybe listing the international games played by a footballer, rather than his goals. Anyway, my comment isn't a vote on this specific article's deletion (or not). Nehme1499 ( talk) 13:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comments I am concerned that the list is going to be merged into Neymars article. It's already on the large size, clearly the delete is not going to happen, and the two merge comments above, well I don't think they have analysed the content and are just based on suggestion. Govvy ( talk) 12:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Incubate in draftspace until he reaches the amounts of goals required, which is becoming the all-time top goalscorer for Brazil. He is not very far from this achievement (only 13 goals from Pele, and there are around 15 matches for Brazil in 2021.) Someone can just keep updating this article and keep editing this draft for the future if they want. Of course, the article can just be re-written at that moment, but here is my suggestion. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 14:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this was moved out because the content is too large for the main Neymar article. It doesn't make sense to merge it back. Spiderone 15:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Keep this article. I'm against the consideration of deletion of the article because it does not make sense. He's the second top scorer of Brazil national team and has a long career ahead of him. If this article is to be deleted, the same will be applicable to article like ' List of international goals scored by Diego Maradona'. So, I have nothing against this article. Ken Tony ( talk) 18:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Player has more than 60 goals. Also agree with the fact that the content is too large for the main Neymar article. Shahoodu ( talk) 18:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge.-- Ortizesp ( talk) 18:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Romário. MBisanz talk 18:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Romário

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

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:02, 23 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 Edinson Cavani. MBisanz talk 18:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Edinson Cavani

List of international goals scored by Edinson Cavani (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
@ Onel5969: I presume you mean 'merge to Edinson Cavani'? Giant Snowman 09:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ronaldo (Brazilian footballer). MBisanz talk 03:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC) reply

List of international goals scored by Ronaldo

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

Per this, this, this, this, and this, we don't keep these types of articles unless they are or were the top goalscorer for their country.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion here for merge and then we had a few deletes thrown in at the end. Some more participation to help garner consensus would be great, thanks!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 01:01, 23 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. MBisanz talk 18:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Vinland, California

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

A 1950s era topo shows Vinland as the location of a siding going into a winery, and a somewhat later aerial shows the same thing. I have no idea who the proprietor was: the complex is still there, and has been added on to with other ware houses, but the tank farm itself isn't labelled in GMaps. At any rate, Leif Ericsson didn't sleep here, nor did anyone else; it's not a notable location. Mangoe ( talk) 22:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nomination; Wikipedia is not an index of every geographic location. TH1980 ( talk) 04:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No post office. Searching GBooks and newspapers.com is hampered by the Vinland Park and Vinland Elementary School in Fresno County and the Vineland Elementary School located elsewhere in Kern County. However, I did not find anything for Vinland, Kern County other than shippers references. Looking at historic topos, the 1954 McFarland Quad shows "Vinland" with the annotation "winery". Searching newspapers.com for "Vinland Winery in California" finds a location in Sonoma County. Searching GBooks for "vinland winery" (with double quotes) finds the same Sonoma County winery. A bit of possibly WP:OR indicates that the tanks are similar to those of the ASV Winery down the road. Searching Google for "wine pond rd mcfarland" finds a couple of wineries very close to this location. My guess is that this locale was a winery that was started before 1954. As there is no legal recognition of this locale as a community and there is virtually no coverage (trivial or not), neither #1 nor #2 of WP:GEOLAND are met. Cxbrx ( talk) 18:04, 27 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. MBisanz talk 18:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Abol-Bashar Mirza Farman Farmaian

Abol-Bashar Mirza Farman Farmaian (  | 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 doesn't discuss why the subject actually is notable, other than stating that he has studied law which millions of people do. And if no independent sources were to be found, then the article has to be deleted. Keivan.f Talk 23:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 23:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article does not make any claims of notability, Google did show me anything making the subject notable. The linked foreign language article has some minor claims, but I do not think they are sufficient to meet WP:GNG are.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain ( talk) 00:58, 23 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. Consensus is that the subject passes both GNG and the SNG (non-admin closure) Smartyllama ( talk) 13:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Nate Bowie

Nate Bowie (  | 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 American basketball player. Seems to have had a "solid" college career, and played for many years overseas in Europe, but cannot find many RS about him. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 00:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 07:56, 23 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 Jurassic Park#Lego Jurassic World: The Indominus Escape (2016). Consensus was to redirect (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 01:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Lego Jurassic World: The Indominus Escape

Lego Jurassic World: The Indominus Escape (  | 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 film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY 2008 00:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 ( talk) 00:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 03:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs ( talk) 03:46, 23 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.
  1. ^ https://uppolice.gov.in/en/officerprofile?transid=38&slugName=moradabad
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_December_23&oldid=997362094"