Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 10	December 12 >

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 merge to Vehicle recycling. The nominator having concurred with the proposal for merge and all outstanding !votes being to merge, I'm going ahead and closing this as a "speedy merge" variant of SK1. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cash for cars

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

Non-notable topic, already covered by vehicle recycling. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 23:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 23:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 23:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per nom, this seems duplicative of what's already in vehicle recycling. To the extent there is any unique content, it should be merged into that page. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with DocFreeman24 on the merge suggestion. Star7924 (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As nominator, I agree with DocFreeman24 that the article should be merged, instead of outright deleted. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 22:29, 14 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) 16:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee Capital Fair

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

No indication of notability. Not PROD'able because it was PROD'd and de-PROD'd in 2009. Source provided is a single line in a citizen-written encyclopedia (check their about page), with nothing substantive and non-local found on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable fair that fails WP:EVENT. Local event that lacks sources to demonstrate notability. Edge3 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not a notable event, not providing reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:16, 15 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) 16:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factorization of the mean

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

Does not appear to be a real term. The two references are about debris flows but don't appear to use the term "factorization of the mean". A previous version of the article claims the term was introduced in 2012 (after both references were published) by Pudasaini, an author who the article creator was blatantly promoting through their edits. Google hits are all about "Factorization of the mean X" (like "Factorization of the mean activity coefficients"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom covers all the salient points; no evidence detectable for claims of "wide acceptance" of this "very fundamental concept". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches resemble what is found by nom. Jeepday (talk) 15:52, 16 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) 16:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Does Popcorn Pop?

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

Does not appear to be a notable book. No sources in the article and coverage found is the standard book sellers, GoodReads, etc; plus citations in the "Uncle John's Bathroom Reader" series. No substantial coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For how more or less relatively frequently used this seems to be as a source, it doesn't seem to have any actual coverage or discussion about it in any place Wikipedia would see as reliable. I searched using Google and a university database, but couldn't find anything of substance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have had this article 8 years and it has zero sources. This is unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability could be found Spiderone 22:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find anything that makes this notable. Jeepday (talk) 17:53, 16 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) 17:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypermuseum

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

This article appears to entirely consist of original research. I've been able to look through about half of the citations, which are hard to follow up on due to the lack of hyperlinks or page numbers, and have not found the phrase "hypermuseum" or any derivation thereof in any of the sources that I have been able to track down. Searching on Google Scholar, there are a fair number of hits for "Hypermuseum", but the concept described in those articles is completely distinct from the definition given here: the former appears to be a virtual museum platform ([1]), whereas this article describes hypermuseums as museums that are architectural masterpieces in their own right. There may be some content here worth using somewhere on Wikipedia, but as written the article appears to coin a new term from whole cloth, which isn't acceptable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have encountered much difficulty trying to access the sources cited in the article, and in the sources I was able to gain access to, there was no mention of the concept of a hypermuseum. This is the only source I could find which even mentioned the concept. Therefore, this article at best describes an obscure, coined research term which ought to be deleted per WP:NEO and WP:OR. As an alternative to deletion, it may be possible for some of the useful information in the article to be selectively merged to an appropriate title such as museum architecture. However, much of the information in the article is couched in the terms of a hypermuseum (which as mentioned falls within WP:NEO, and as such the passages probably need a fundamental rewrite before they could be usable. Unless someone is willing to perform the merge, or otherwise demonstrate widespread usage of the term in the academia / news, my delete vote stays. --Dps04 (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and because this is an essay full of OR. Mccapra (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail on WP:NOR and WP:NEO and has WP:NPOV issues. KylieTastic (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JRJR Networks

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

This is/was (status unknown following bankruptcy) a holding company for some MLM firms, including Longaberger Baskets. This was a no-consensus close in 2014 and other than some coverage of the 2018 struggles of its constituent orgs, there's nothing since that time that would establish notability of the parent company. Coverage appears limited to name drops and nothing significant. StarM 19:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. StarM 19:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note prior Afd is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CVSL as I'm not sure how to make it show up up top. Feel free to remove this if you know how to integrate it. StarM 19:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. My assertion is if the only significant coverage is that of a closure, it still isn't significant. Additional issues with the article exist including a reliance on mostly Press Releases for sources and links to their subsidiaries, if it were to be kept should be a WP:TNT situation (I still vote delete and stay that way.) ~RAM (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the nom the references I find are related to Longaberger Baskets, which does not provide notability for the subject of the article. I don't see any claims in the article the lead me to believe there is anything to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are dead links, unrelated or PR - a quick google fails to show notability - so fails WP:ORG/WP:GNG. KylieTastic (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. blatant hoax —Kusma (t·c) 11:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devira Faradiba

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

This one looks like a hoax as well. I can find no record of such a player for Fiorentina. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG unless this can be reliably sourced. Spiderone 18:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this is made up - there's mo mention about such a player anywhere online - checked both google and official Fiorentina web page. Speedy delete - I am changing my vote as the editor who created the article most likely tested his Wikipedia skills. (see here. This article is almost the exact copy of Mochammad Supriadi. Less Unless (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - likely hoax. Giant Snowman 09:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've tagged this as a WP:G3 Spiderone 12:09, 12 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 an article about her book (Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters) which according to this discussion is the notable topic here. If that is not done, the article can be renominated. Sandstein 21:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Shrier

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

Reasons for listing:

The article does not appear to independently establish notability of the subject to create a WP:BLP.
The sole claim to notability appears to be controversy surrounding the publication of the book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters; as such, the policy Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event applies. "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person."

While there may eventually be enough WP:RS coverage regarding the book and the book's controversy, right now there are very few viable sources for even that.IHateAccounts (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep I dont agree that all sources are surrounding the book and that this is about an event. She also has in depth coverage about her and discussions of the "transgender" subject. There are sources from WSJ and Chicago Tribune, which are very credible publications. It pass [WP:GNG]]. Peter303x (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which specific sources you believe pass WP:RS? One of the Wall Street Journal articles only mentions her in passing as having once been interviewed on Joe Rogan's podcast, the other is a non-WP:RS opinion column. Likewise, the Chicago Tribune article is an opinion column and does not pass WP:RS. None of these three establish notability. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is notable due to the significant in depth coverage of it in reliable sources and therefore we might as well have the biography as that is a superior reader experience to just having an article about the book. "one event" doesn't apply to notable books. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Philafrenzy: WP:Notability is not inherited.
We have a notability guideline for authors called WP:AUTHOR, and the standard that subjects have to meet is: The person has created... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. [emphasis added]
Shrier clearly does not meet that standard, and it can be seen because we have not been shown any evidence of WP:LASTING coverage of the book where we can definitively say it is significant or well known (a higher standard than notable). (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: In order to address your claims that even "the book is notable due to the significant in depth coverage of it in reliable sources", we need you to indicate which sources you believe those are. Peter303x was good enough to indicate their belief that the WSJ and Chicago Tribune sources qualified above, and I have addressed those directly. Can you please provide the sources you believe qualify, so that these can be checked? IHateAccounts (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Shrier is only notable for this book, and there are not enough WP:RS to discuss her without introducing a bias. Bravetheif (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into an article about the book. The book has received a lot of coverage and debate, and a number of the references in the article specifically mention Shrier in the headline (The Sunday Times, Media Matters for America, The Orion, Chicago Tribune). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book is clearly notable, with coverage from Gay City News, The Christian Post, Chicago Tribune and Psychology Today. There is no currently existing article about the book, so we can't merge it, but if people want to rename & shift the article's focus to be about the book, I think that would be fine. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and shift topic to book. Most of the sourcing is primarily about the book, not about Shrier, and WP:BLP1E strongly suggests that we should not focus on Shrier when she is only notable for publishing a notable book. Gbear605 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and restructure to be about the book. I don't see that the author meets the notability standard at all. Right now this is an article about a book trying to cram itself into a BLP framework. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under WP:AUTHOR (which includes journalists) a person is likely to be notable if they have created a "significant or well-known work" which this seems to be as there is consensus the book is notable, and it has been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" which her book has. The public will not understand how a book can be notable but not its author - particularly where it is so clearly aligned with her personal views - and will want to learn more about the author. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Why does something controversial need to be deleted? Another indication of the insanity of our times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.184.15.46 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't about whether or not to talk about it but whether to move it into a separate article for the book. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article for the book, return for discussion afterwards - the book is clearly notable, creating an article for it first and then AfDing the BLP would give a clear basis to understand what else is mentioned in RSes besides the book. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book is notable for its extreme controversy. But it isn't a significant monument; it's having a moment. She isn't really notable outside of the one book (on which an article should probably be written). This is at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Some of the sources cited are articles of her own authorship even! FalconK (talk) 04:11, 17 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) 18:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prisdo Aun Dhaifullah

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

Genuinely struggling to find any evidence of notability for this person; the sources in the article don't mention him at all. Getting Wikipedia mirrors and little else when searching online. Appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:GNG by a long way. Could this be a hoax? Spiderone 18:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article is the exact copy (except for the name) of the existing one about the real referee Thoriq Alkatiri. So this might be a test page (I believe in good faith). By the way, it's by the same editor who wrote Devira Faradiba you mentioned above. Less Unless (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no sign of notability at all - possible hoax. As per above copy of Thoriq Alkatiri with its own notability issues - KylieTastic (talk) 18:09, 18 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) 18:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toyoji Takahashi

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. While he was selected for the 1936 Summer Olympics team, he did not appear in a match. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 18:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete fails WP:SOLDIER. If he was selected for the Olympic team you would think that he previously played at a level necessary to meet WP:NFOOTBALL but if RS can't be found then he fails that too as he didn't actually play at the 1936 Olympics. Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The Japanese language article claims that he did not appear in the Olympics, but did appear in three friendly matches for Japan around that time. That being said I can't make heads nor tails of the actual chart on the Japanese page. SportingFlyer T·C 00:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTBALL he did not compete in Olympic games, he is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL and GNG on evidence available unfortunately Spiderone 15:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Lettler. Non-notable athlete. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources.BexBlack314 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY - Notability not inherited, and notability is not for things your came close to doing but didn't! KylieTastic (talk) 18:17, 18 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 per WP:CSD#G7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transition (2020)

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

non-notable film, the only marginally decent source, The Hindu is actually just PR gibberish, presumably submitted to the paper given the lack of byline. Praxidicae (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete - If I were reviewing this article at AFC, I would decline it as not having a Reception section and otherwise not meeting film notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Author has requested deletion under G7 Merry Christmas! Asartea ^Talk ^Contribs! 11:13, 12 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) 18:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde, Imperial County, California

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

To try to save some time, we have a series of sidings/points on the ex-SP line through the desert of California. They all have more or less identical articles, and on the map they all look the same: a rail line (now double-tracked) running along side a road, usually with a distinctive pattern of berms to channel flash flood runoff, and nothing else whatsoever except the desert floor and very spare vegetation. It is hard to imagine that any of these could ever have been settlements. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the above: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk
Delete all - Fails WP:GEOLAND per nom. Checked a couple of them, and yeah, there's nothing notable here. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No post offices. I checked Frink and Ruthven and found only railroad references. No legal recognition, no nontrivial coverage, so WP:GEOLAND is not met. Cxbrx (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fail GEOLAND and GNG Spiderone 10:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all False content, these are not communities. Reywas92^Talk 01:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of these places meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL: per Spiderone and indiscriminate. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:29, 18 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) 18:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holidaze: The Christmas That Almost Didn't Happen

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

I can find zero independent coverage of this – no reviews, nothing. Indeed, the article is so sparse in content, I can't even tell if this ever aired on television, or is a simply direct-to-video offering. Regardless, the article has been unsourced for over a decade, and I can't find any independent coverage of it (i.e. a WP:GNG fail), so there is zero evidence that this topic is notable enough for an article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear failure of GNG. SK2242 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable film. During a Google search I couldn't find anything besides the standard databases and retail sites. There is an eswiki and a ruwiki article as well, but they are both sourced to IMDb, so the sourcing isn't better there either. But there are no sources in this article whatsoever. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:43, 12 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) 18:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bertram, California

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

"Located on the Southern Pacific Railroad" and little other text translates to "isolated siding and not a settlement", as usual. There's still a pair of passing sidings here beside the Salton Sea, but plainly not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 01:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. There is nothing there. This could be a GNIS goof or a name carried forth from an earlier time. While it is easy to create articles, that could include names only on an "official" list or a list that copies that list, and can include mass entries, there is nothing to identify this as a community, mine, or anything else other than a place seems to have existed. A search brought up several places in the area but nothing on this place. Otr500 (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and censure creator Blatantly false content Reywas92^Talk 01:18, 16 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 Nielsen Pearson. Missvain (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Nielsen Pearson Band

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

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Was deprodded with the rationale, "article seems good enough to pass WP:NALBUM with the sources indicated." Ref #1 is not independent. Ref #3 is mainly about Meat Loaf, which the band appeared with at a concert, and has exactly a single sentence about the band, zero about this album. Ref #4 is simple listing with some of the recording personnel, not an in-depth review. Ref #4 is the only source which is more than a single line about the album, and is a short blurb about the album, not an in-depth review. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The title confused me, I was wondering why a band was included in the Albums and songs AfD category. But then I saw that "The Nielsen Pearson Band" is the name of the album, which I find rather strange (the name of the actual band is simply "Nielsen Pearson", which on the contrary, sounds like a person's name to me). But anyways, I fully agree with nom and I couldn't find anything reliable about this album, only the standard youtube videos, streaming links, retail sites, short blurbs and blogs. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band article at Nielsen Pearson. The album is non-notable in its own right, but its title could be a search term for someone seeking the album OR the band, since it looks like the band tried to get fancy with a cryptic album title. So there's no harm if a search ends up at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Just to make things even more complicated, the band's second album had another poorly-considered title: Nielsen/Pearson (note the clever slash). That album article has also been tagged for notability, though it did generate a hit single. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nielsen Pearson. Group is notable for a hit single and the later songwriting career of Reed Nielsen, but the album got almost no attention. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Nielsen Pearson: As the page creator, only sources 2 and 4 talk about the album, but I feel that it's not notable enough with those 2. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 17 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) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acolita, California

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

An extremely isolated siding in the middle of a vast wasteland. Mangoe (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 02:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and TimothyBlue. Pull it up on Google maps and it actually shows just a name on a railroad bordering the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:27, 17 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) 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ladylike (web series)

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

ZERO reliable sources. Searches are hampered by the commonality of the name, but could not find enough to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable YouTube webseries fails WP:GNG. KidAd talk 21:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Short lived and non-notable. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the web series. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 17 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. Tone 15:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Kryukov (historian)

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

The article makes no claim about his work that would indicate he is in any way a notable academic. The sourcing is totally inadequate for a biography of a living person and does not pass GNG. A search for more information on him turned up no substantial sources that would overcome these drawbacks John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creating several typefaces and being a candidate of historical sciences is not enough for an article. Fails all possible notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how he passes WP:PROF, but ping me if you can find better sources than his c.v. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 18 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. Tone 15:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Joy

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

Fails notability. I am unable to verify the claims about being "the" (or "a") Egyptian boxing champ or competing in the Olympics qualifications, and I can't find reliable independent sources about him as a writer either. "Theupcomingco" doesn't look like a reliable source, they are "interviews" with standard questions by an obscure site, no actual reporting is done. The other are booksellers and primary sources. Fram (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any evidence of a boxer by that name and the references provided do nothing towards satisfying GNG. – ².O.^Boxing 15:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete and block the creator for WP:UPE. This non-notable person has 0 coverage in independent rs. Praxidicae (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The boxing champion info can't be proved - no evidence. I have even translated the name into arabic, still nothing. This is an obvious notability fail. I also agree with Praxidicae - the user has to be checked for UPE as the articles they develop in the drafts and submit for review are all dedicated to "wanna be on Wikipedia" subjects failing notability guidelines. Less Unless (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just promo for his print-on-demand books. The claim of notability fails independent verification. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a writer nor as a boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 14 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. Tone 15:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tambo, California

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

Yet another passing siding in the middle of an agricultural area. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 02:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nom and TimothyBlue. Nothing there and nothing on a search. These could be listed on the appropriate county articles until a sourced minimum of prose (not just a dictionary entry) could be offered. Otr500 (talk) 13:34, 17 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. Tone 15:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goodrich Community Primary School

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

No sources talking about the subject in significant detail found in a WP:BEFORE search. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. SK2242 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, searching for usable sources in Google, GNews and GBooks gave no useful results to establish notability. Fram (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT). Subject lacks WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. Sources in article are not IS RS with SIGCOV. BEFORE revealed nothing. // Timothy :: talk 19:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable primary school, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry lads, this is of architectural interest. One reference provided. It is of educational interest as it was built as all-through school- not a primary school. WP:IS just isn't an issue if it has an Ofsted report. Wikishootme shows our coverage of South London is poor, suggesting a delete will make it worse. I haven't found any architects drawings of the original buildings yet but they ddo seem to be more extensive than a standard London triple decker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 10:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NBUILD, WP:NBUILDING, and WP:GEOFEAT. Tennis Anyone?^Talk 16:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NSCHOOL, the school does not satisfy notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails notability for a school, and there are not enough sources to show its architecture is of not either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 14 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. Tone 15:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Friedman

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

This page reads like a resume. It is rarely neutral, and feels exactly like one of the many articles for creation that gets declined every day. It was created in 2012 when, I assume, the standard of "qualifying for a Wikipedia article" was less enforced. Zack Friedman does NOT show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The sources are all from organizations affiliated with Zack Friedman, or are simply proof of his existence. He just doesn't meet the standard of "notable." Bizmilk3 (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)— Bizmilk3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment respectably, this is a fake account named Bizmilk that created this deletion page. This person is personally attacking Mr. Friedman with a personal agenda and stating false statements. After updating this article, I noticed that this author says untrue things like not having reliable secondary sources when there are many like cnbc, bloomberg and many others. Just sayin.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article definitely over-relies on primary sources. One source which looked promising was the last reference, but it's dead, hopefully someone can rescue it. I did a quick Google search, I couldn't find much. Hmanburg (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement. Should this businessman eventually be notable per independent sources, the text as is is so non-neutral, best delete for now. Leo Breman (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure WP:PROMO material better suited for his LinkedIn profile. KidAd talk 21:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree this doesn't fit current standards. It doesn't seem like neutral information/sources even exist User:lex9000 2:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTRESUME. In theory, giving a TEDx talk can count towards notability, but is not automatic. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rescued some sources here and fixed the broken link. Removed some biographical info and any language that didnt appear neutral. Sources now include Newsweek, CNBC, Business Insider, Jewish Business News plus Success Magazine and Publishers Weekly. None of these sources appear to be linked to him in any way, and are therefore independent, major secondary sources. comment added by Terjar12 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC) — Terjar12 [reply]
Comment respectably, this is a fake account named Bizmilk that created this deletion page. This person is personally attacking Mr. Friedman with a personal agenda and stating false statements. After updating this article, I noticed that this author says untrue things like not having reliable secondary sources when there are many like cnbc, bloomberg and many others. Just sayin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terjar12 (talk • contribs)
Delete. This is a guy who has gone to school and had a few jobs, just like millions of other people. Being profiled a couple times and writing op-eds is not notable. FalconK (talk) 04:18, 17 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 14:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jhimli Roy

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

WP:TOOSOON; no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:FILMMAKER. GSS ^💬 13:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 13:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't passes GNG. Setreis (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article and facts stated are supported by verifiable references from reliable, independent sources, official websites of different noted film events which are respected events in field of serious cinema, art & culture.Wowknowledge2 (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above (sock excluded) Spiderone 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 18 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. Tone 15:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Savani

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

Repeatedly recreated over and over again. Has been deleted as WP:G11 only yesterday but got created again last night. PROD was contested without reason. Concern was Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and any other applicable guideline. Significant WP:COI concern. Also see Maheshbhai Savani. Spiderone 13:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and consider salting the title temporarily. Fails GNG and relevant SNG. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Setreis (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is not remarkable to have an article. --Walrus Ji (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. And salt due to recreation history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:57, 18 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 14:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Pointe Credit Union

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

Can find anything to show this passes WP:ORG, created by a single purpose account with undisclosed WP:COI as they appear to work in th subjects marketing dept (from name matching), with no sources after 4 years KylieTastic (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 13:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability. Kablammo (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's difficult to see how a small, local CU could be notable unless it did something jaw-droppingly wrong, and in any case there's no real claim to notability made. Mangoe (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claims of notability in the article, nothing notable found in google news. Jeepday (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:56, 18 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. Tone 15:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Reine

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

Virtually zero in-depth coverage, so she fails WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - the outcome of this discussion will likely affect In The Reine too Spiderone 13:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have PROD'ded that album article, which was a procedural choice so the album is not still sitting around if/when this musician article is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This may be an autobiography or a COI creation by a promo-only editor, as the article creator, Beeb28, seems to only work on articles/drafts promoting her, her songs or her record company Beeb Music. Netherzone (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really wonder how articles like this get through the AfC process. There is a committed team of volunteers there, helping new Wikipedia editors write articles with proper formatting and grammar and presentation. And yet somehow nobody on that team does a basic notability check? Or as I have seen argued a few times, an author sends their AfC article to mainspace prematurely, in which case the AfC team needs tougher oversight processes. As for Ms. Reine, I wish her luck as she launches her music career, and she is surely pounding away at the usual self-created streaming and social media services to spread the word. But she has no significant and reliable media coverage to come anywhere close to the requirements for musical notability. Charitably it is too soon for an article; less charitably this is another attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - User:Doomsdayer520 - This article was not approved by AFC. This article was in AFC, and was then moved into article space twice by the author, not by AFC reviewers, and was moved back into draft space once by a New Page Reviewer. There is an incorrect tag on such articles, which states that they were approved in AFC, which actually means that they were in AFC and were moved into article space. The tag may also correctly be on articles that were accepted, but where the script did not finish cleanup. In this case the tag is incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon - Thank you for the information, but it is the argument that I noted as having seen before (from you, I believe, in other AfDs), and it all falls within the need for tougher oversight that I suggested. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doomsdayer520, that is part of the reason that articles approved at AfC still have to go through an NPP review (in many cases). Some advanced editors automatically get their moves marked as autopatrolled (this seems to be pretty consistent among Sysops who work at AfC). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to others - I have been convinced elsewhere that this glitch in the AfC process is not particularly common and it was unfair of me to imply that it happens a lot. Some of us are discussing possible procedural ideas elsewhere. Now back to the discussion at hand... ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree with the notion that the sources are not sourced well enough. everything is located there. I see countless articles with little or zero sources at all and they are there forever. I also disagree with the implication that I wrote this article with the intent to self promote. I am a fan of the artist and I was doing it to help out the artist and fans I have no direct connection with the artist. so i don't appreciate that accusation. Beeb28 14:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the other stuff exists fallacy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Netherzone, "seems to only work on articles/drafts promoting her, her songs or her record company Beeb Music" is not true, firstly I again want to make clear I am a fan with no direct connection and that I wrote things based on the internet. my username was in reference to the artist because I like the music. I have worked on quite a few other musical wikis like Keith Tippet and Gordian Knot. The reason why it seems like I have only worked on one topic is I was working on connecting everything together for a seamless experience if anyone came onto the page Beeb28 15:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeb28 (talk • contribs)

I did not make the direct accusation against Beeb28 (though I do think the article's writing style is too promotional), but I think we can accept Beeb28's claims of good faith. However, that still accomplishes nothing for the musician's notability, which is what needs to be discussed here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeb28: thank you for your comments, and for your interest in Wikipedia and your efforts here. WP is an encyclopedia, it's not a venue for promoting non-notable content just because one is a fan. That is what websites, social media or sites like LinkedIn, etc. are for. In my comment below, I've linked some things (as have the editors above) - these may be helpful in familiarizing you with some of WP's policies and guidelines. Regarding my comment about a possible autobio or COI, it struck me as quite odd that your username pretty much matches the name of her music company, ~~however, I'll take your word for it that you are not a directly connected editor.~~ Netherzone (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a BEFORE search, I could find nothing in the way of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources WP:RS independent of the subject WP:IS, therefore does not meet the notability criteria for WP:GNG. Also does not pass WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:CREATIVE, as all I could find was user-submitted content such as social media, music streaming/downloading/purchasing sites, and zero reviews, or articles about her, no notable awards nor chart placements. Netherzone (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
deletewith fire yikes. There is 0 credibility to the sources and there's barely even a claim of notability, much less a substantiated one. Praxidicae (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note my delete vote includes all the other crap related to this in mainspace, which has since been moved to draft by the creator, to avoid continued tendetious editing. Praxidicae (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, "delete with fire yikes" this is a very inflammatory remark. I appreciate everyone else being civil with the process but you are not. I'm not a veteran wikipedia user so I make mistakes Beeb28 16:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Beeb28 - Harry S. Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are other deletion techniques used in AFD besides fire, such as silver bullets. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability criteria. This article is part of a walled garden of articles about this artist and her works. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article appears to have been reference-bombed with unreliable sources, including LinkedIn, YouTube, and Spotify. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and comments above; if this article cannot be sourced to anything other than Tidal, Spotify and social media sites then it should not be retained Spiderone 15:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you all for the feedback. I will use that to make sure I do a better job at finding sources. I just ask that the whole thing not be deleted, but instead drafted so I can work on improving the article in the future Beeb28 16:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeb28: Could you please explain why all of the files you uploaded to Commons in relation to this artist, her music and her record company are credited to you as "own work" and with either Isabelle Reine or Beeb Music credited as the "Author"? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes I put the artist's name and/or label in the copyright section. and I had emailed the label for permission to use the images. I'm not used to Wikipedia so i don't exactly know how to use commons. I have since changed it to fix the error. Thanks Beeb28 17:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeb28: If I'm not mistaken, you need to send that email regarding licencing permissions to OTRS at Commons, if you have not already done so. Editors, please correct me if I'm wrong about that. Netherzone (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: You are right. The permissions granted by the owner should be sent for review which takes up to 2 weeks. Also the guys at the OTRS do not accept permission sent from generic email accounts, they require an official verifiable email account.Less Unless (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable per nom (and others). The sourcing is not of a standard to be considered acceptable and quick search reveals virtually no useful results. Eagleash (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV, no IRS. Fails all notability guidelines.Less Unless (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per author's request or delete but in either case, SALT so she can't return to mainspace out of process a third time. StarM 01:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole COI/(UPE?) spam-fest...

In The Reine
Draft:Beeb Music
Draft:I'll Be Dead By Tomorrow
Draft:In The Reine
Draft:Intermediate Flight Training
Draft:Isabelle Reine (Album)
Draft:Isabelle Reine

-- Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Cabayi - The last six pages in your list are drafts. Deletion of drafts is considered at MFD, and my guess is that the drafts would not be deleted if a request were made to delete them. Notability is not considered at MFD, because one of the uses of draft space is for a subject that does not currently meet notability, and are normally not deleted simply for COI. Drafts are typically deleted for disruptive editing, and we haven't seen disruptive editing here. If you want to comment on the drafts to recommend that they be rejected, that is all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, as you've already pointed out, it's one "walled garden of articles about this artist and her works." I believe WP:NOTBURO & WP:NOTSUICIDE apply. Cabayi (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per everyone else above. No evidence of notability. The sourcing is trash. Spotify and the like does not establish notability. They never did and they never will. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this 18-year-old is not yet a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. The nominator has withdrawn the nominator. Clear consensus to keep, and only delete !vote is simply a "Per nom" argument. (non-admin closure) Foxnpichu (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lomax

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

Only claim to notability is from technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL for playing 12 minutes of professional football for Macclesfield; a totally inconsequential substitute appearance. I could find no evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG from this appearance alone or from his subsequent amateur career. There is a growing consensus that footballers that only just pass NFOOTY can and should be deleted if GNG is comprehensively failed. These were the best secondary sources that I could find [2] [3] [4] [5]. Spiderone 12:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - I had naively assumed that he had signed for Marine Castle and just not played. If the S.League was fully professional back then, then I'm happy to withdraw this. Spiderone 17:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spiderone: – S.League#Origins says it was created by the FA of Singapore as a pro league to replace the previous semi-pro top level in 1996, and there's no suggestion at WP:FPL that it hasn't always been fully pro, so I'm assuming it always has been. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom BigCheese76 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To avoid wasting people's time unnecessarily, Mr Lomax did actually play a full season in the 2001 S.League (a fully professional league) for Marine Castle United as one of their quota of foreigners, as well as his 12 minutes for Macclesfield. Please see e.g. Google search of non-RS host of official SLeague match details which place him in at least 14 SLeague matches that season, Soccerbot results and scorers (1 winning goal, 1 own goal), Straits Times match report of him scoring that winner, not freely accessible online. If I'd noticed that club added to his infobox I might have updated categories, prose etc at the time, will update him properly later today or over the weekend. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway2 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 11 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. Tone 15:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Walsh (producer)

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

Prodded with the rationale fails WP:NOTABLE, but the edit summary did not state the article was being PRODDED, so here we are. I didn't see the sort of coverage to indicate a pass of WP:GNG or I guess WP:NCREATIVE(?), the link in the article that purports to be "Sean Walsh featured in the Sydney Morning Herald" is really just a passing mention of him, which seems to be the best coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see any claims in the article that would meet WP:JOURNALIST, the subjects name is common, so I get several google hits, but I don't find anything that would support notability for this person. Jeepday (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this vanity page. FalconK (talk) 04:27, 17 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. Tone 15:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Ahuja

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

Non notable entrepreneur who fails to satisfy our notability criteria. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fail GNG. WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO are also not satisfied. A before search turns up unreliable self written pieces such as this and announcements Celestina007 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The example link above, this, was not written by the article subject. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 12:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as per WP: CREATIVE. Agreeing with Celestina007 on point lacking significant coverage. Maximum sources are secondry. And the mentioned link( above) was never a part of the page.Source no.4 is used to support the content only^[1]. Page should be considered as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC) RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Are you sure you wouldn’t want to use the AFC process until you understand policies? You just cited both CREATIVE & NACADEMIC for a businessman and If I may ask how does that work? You also agreed that the subject of the article lacked significant coverage which is required by GNG and yet you !voted a keep? Anyway it would be counter intuitive if an article creator !voted to delete his own article. Furthermore please see both WP:COI & WP:PAID. Celestina007 (talk) 07:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising I appreciated your observations and tried to improve the page (which is allowed when the discussion continues ) and dropped a message[[6]] at your talk page also, but this contention[[7]] is unacceptable. Maybe I contested it wrongly but how this can drive to WP:PAID. ThanksRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My message on your talk page copying here: Respected Celestina007, Greetings of the day! First of all, I acknowledge your review and every action on the subject page. I am here to seek your advice. After your observations, I have revised many parts of the page. Kindly guide me if it is workable now or I should give up? Thank you and best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 06:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well formed argument of nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JPL. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another article about a dude with a job, doesn't meet WP:BIO. FalconK (talk) 04:29, 17 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 14:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daisuke Uchijima

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

This is essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990), only this footballers played 3 league games for the same club, not 1 game. At least 70 AFD discussions (with more being added every week) say that this is not enough because of the WP:GNG fail. Geschichte (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his name in Japanese is 内島大輔; I can't find any evidence that he can pass WP:GNG Spiderone 13:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is clear AFD consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL but failing GNG is insufficient for notability. Giant Snowman 09:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer. We need to end Wikipedia being football/cricketpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:53, 18 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) 15:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shinya Yamagishi

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

This is essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990), only this footballers played 3 league games for the same club, not 1 game. At least 70 AFD discussions (with more being added every week) say that this is not enough because of the WP:GNG fail. Geschichte (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his name in Japanese is 山岸深夜; I can't find any evidence that he can pass WP:GNG; a lot of NSFW coming up in case anyone is keen on doing their own search Spiderone 13:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is clear AFD consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL but failing GNG is insufficient for notability. Giant Snowman 09:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while they barely pass WP:NFOOTY, they don't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:53, 18 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) 15:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Park Myung-eun

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

This is essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990), only this footballers played 4 league games for the same club, not 1 game. At least 70 AFD discussions (with more being added every week) say that this is not enough because of the WP:GNG fail. Geschichte (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has the same name as a Korean pop star so a search is difficult; can't see him passing WP:GNG, if sources are found, please ping me Spiderone 13:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is clear AFD consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL but failing GNG is insufficient for notability. Giant Snowman 09:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 18 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) 15:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroto Takahashi

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

This is essentially the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shun Sato (footballer, born 1990), only this footballers played 3 league games for the same club, not 1 game. At least 70 AFD discussions (with more being added every week) say that this is not enough because of the WP:GNG fail. Geschichte (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some coverage found here and here but insufficient for WP:GNG Spiderone 13:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is clear AFD consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL but failing GNG is insufficient for notability. Giant Snowman 09:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to hold footballers to GNG, otherwise Wikipedia will turn into Footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 18 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) 18:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jihene Ben Jazia

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

Possible COI article of a non notable entrepreneur and social media influencer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her thus fails to satisfy GNG & doesn’t satisfy WP:ANYBIO also. A before search reveals nothing imperative or of relevance to GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both touching and hilarious. I’ve never seen Mahdia described as a ‘small fishing village’ before. So picturesque! Mccapra (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing close to notable. For those readers like me who were under informed about Tunisia, Mahdia has over 60,000 people. Small fishing villages are normally under 2,000, and that may still be bigger then they are in some people's minds.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jihene Ben Jazia is notable in the middle east and tunisia for both her work as a stylist and an influencer. She was featured in several sources: vogue arabia, business news (please see the references in the article) and exposed at tunisia fashion week 2019. Requested changes have been done: Mahdia not being a small village, maison atypik brand to reflect it in a more simple way, carrier to show only experiences that had an impact on her being a stylist. PS: Here I am trying to contribute on north africa subjects coverage (history, design & architecture). This is my first article from scratch and I am willing to contribute more, your feedback will be valuable to me. I vote that this article remains; please let me know if there is any other modification or clarification needed.zamsinus (talk)

Comment —Editor above has declared a COI with the subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, I cleaned up the article and i added reliable sources like leaders, fashionunited.fr ... She has also an article vogue arabia --ChrisMat2020 (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also made an attempt to clean up the article so it wouldn't be rejected outright for grammar, but after going through the sources, they don't meet WP:GNG. A simple Google search fails to turn up anything else. It's WP:TOOSOON. @Zamsinus: Save the article draft so you at least have a starting point, and if she and her company get more media coverage, you can add the coverage and try again. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thank you all for your feedback and contributions, I will save the article as a draft and submit it for review once the subject gets more media coverage. zamsinus (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Olly Murs

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

Olly Murs discography covers (or should cover) the same ground. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A discography refers to albums, EPs and singles released on vinyl, CD and latterly?, which is the area covered by the OM Discography, whereas this is a list of songs recorded by, and would include songs from the albums (omitted on the discography) and could include unreleased songs, uncredited (but referenced) performances on other people's recordings. Many artists have both and unless your argument is that the Olly Murs list of songs recorded is not substantive, then the list should remain. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from being a Featured List, which in itself suggest that it is a viable and useful page otherwise concern would have been raised about it during the reviewing, the Discography page covers albums and singles, i.e. commercial releases, not songs and songwriters. I was the first editor to produce an FL of songs for Rihanna, and subsequently I've done many more for the worlds most famous and successful artists, and other editors have followed and expanded on that blueprint for other artists too, on which many I worked with them on them too. Lists existed prior to the first FL, but not in a maintained or special format, for years prior. The point is that there are now dozens of lists like this, why is this one being singled out for possible deletion? The reason for deletion is pretty weak, bordering on baseless, as you could say this about any list or associated page/article. It's not a valid reason. Not being substantive would be valid for one album, perhaps for only two albums, but Murs has released five albums worth of material as well as many non-album songs and other releases. — Calvin999 11:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was expecting to see just a low-grade list of songs, with nothing else, but htis is a Featured List. Probably best to start with the process to get it removed from the FL list first, if you think it does not meet the FL criteria, instead of going for a delete. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Usually not fond of lists like these, but this one is well sourced and covered. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. "Uncle." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 11 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 14:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi School of Excellence

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

School does not appear to pass WP:NORG, I cannot find any sources and the article does not currently show notability Garnarblarnar (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A school entitled "School of Excellence" definitely sounds too promotional to be real, let alone notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no claims in the article that would meet WP:NSCHOOL google is not showing anything that would support NotabilityJeepday (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Schools don't have inherent notability. This is a random private grade school and there's no evidence it's notable. FalconK (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL / (WP:ORGCRIT), lacks WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that address the subject directly and in-depth. There is basic, run of the mill, routine, normal, coverage. SIngle source in the article is not IS RS with SIGCOV and BEFORE revealed nothing with SIGCOV. The article makes no claim towards meeting WP:N and BEFORE revealed none. This is a normal school, not an encyclopedic topic. // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 17 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. Tone 15:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linear Sphere

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination of this article. The first was back in 2014 when the result was "no consensus". One of the users, who is very likely a COI/SPA editor really protested to keep the article, and he said that they are notable because they have been covered by Sea of Tranquility and they have a Metal Archives entry and they have an otherwise blank Allmusic page... I laughed my freaking butt off. First off, Sea of Tranquility is not a reliable source. Second, Metal Archives isn't reliable either, and btw, they have every metal band in the world there, even the ones that were active for one year and they released an EP or demo...so it's not a big deal to have a MA entry. Third, a blank Allmusic page is not a RS either. The band page has to contain a biography to be considered notable, and the album page must contain a staff-written review, and not just a track listing and user reviews. With this out of the way, this is a non-notable progressive metal band. The article is tagged with multiple issues, including notability, which is never a good sign. And the sourcing is dreadful. The only thing that is reliable is the Metal Storm review, because it was written in 2012 and Metal Storm after 2009 counts as reliable. The other sites are not even close to be reliable - Metal Archives, blank Allmusic page, the official site of the band and some blogs whose domain has been long expired or they simply display an error message, and the few that are available do not look reliable, because as I said, they are blogs. During a Google search I couldn't find anything better, therefore I am highly doubtful of this band's notability. So yeah, just another non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains links to the usual roster of metal zines which are not notable. I had to delete Metal-archive as it has been deemed unreliable and should not be used on Wikipedia. Quick Google search resulted in no sources to convince me that the band currently meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They would have a place on a Fandom site for their genre and style of music, but not here. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:28, 11 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) 10:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FC Madohi

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

Fails verification, possible WP:HOAX. The one external link was to a page about AD Dili Oeste and not "FC Madohi". The only non-wiki-mirror found is an RSSSF page, which I'm concerned is citing this article. Neither the "Presidente Cup" or "Madohi Stadium" appear anywhere other than this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this team does in fact appear to exist, per this article, so I don't think it's a hoax. Nonetheless, existing doesn't make this team notable and it fails the notability guidelines so I'm happy to nom for delete. ser! (let's discuss it). 16:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That says it's a Futsal team, not a football team. Would explain how it exists but has basically no coverage, and is not in football databases. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unlikely to exist, and even if it does unlikely to be notable given lack of any coverage. Giant Snowman 08:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see this passing WP:GNG Spiderone 17:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure it exists or not. That alone shows that it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hawley, California

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

A rail junction, not a town. THat's what the topos say, and that's what is there now. Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 07:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another GNIs/Durham micro-stub with no reliable evidence of ever having been a populated place, much less one either legally recognised or a WP:GNG pass under WP:GEOLAND. The additional photos show construction of the railway, but not evidence of the community. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 21:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and most likely fails WP:GEOLAND as well Spiderone 15:39, 16 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. Tone 15:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shazia Wajahat

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

BLP does not meet WP:NBIO- coverage is passing mentions, lacks evidence of major roles. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 07:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a film exec, but without enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 18 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) 18:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Joss

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

Notability concerns for this dominoes player. I can't find any details about the baz.ch article (not in archive.org), and while FIDO's site is down, [8] confirms that a person of this name won the 2007 title. I have found virtually no other information; a very short 2007 article that says that the world championship was among 80 people is it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd probably not create this kind of article any more, but for what it's worth, there's also brief coverage of her title in Blick ([9] [10]). It refers to a report by the SDA news agency, so presumably they considered this to be of national relevance. But there doesn't seem to be anything about the person except her winning this title at one time, so covering it in a list somewhere might be more appropriate. Given that the competition itself doesn't seem to be covered by Wikipedia, I don't particularly object to deletion. Sandstein 08:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:24, 18 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aadu Puli Attam (disambiguation)

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

Not enough content. All links have been transferred to the hatnote at Lambs and Tigers. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 3 entries here, and no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:33, 15 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. Tone 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arnab Jan Deka

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

This article seems both to be blatantly promotional (G11) and also to fail to indicate significance of its subject. References are not convincing, too. Nalbarian (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
per John Pack Lambert Rajuiu (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree this is simply a promotional piece. I'm actually amazed it has been around for so long. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:40, 18 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. Tone 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IlohaMail

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

Notability issues for this email system. I don't see any substantive coverage on Google search, just boilerplate for an Ubuntu package and some security vulnerabilities. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no claims in the article that meet WP:GNG, I don't find anything notable when I search. Jeepday (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:31, 18 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 14:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy

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

Not a notable cricket player. Played one first-class match, no non-statistical (or wiki-mirror) coverage found. Not to be confused with Michael Yardy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more indepth (non-routine) coverage can be found. Nothing seemed to be available online. Fram (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of D. R. Jardine's XI cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails all basic notability standards including SPORTBASIC. No significant coverage; only sources are all-inclusive databases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the complete failure of WP:GNG far surpasses the skin of teeth passing of WP:NCRIC Spiderone 16:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another extremely minor sportsperson who would have a place on a specialist Fandom site, but not this one. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to a suitable list, although I'm not sure in this case that this solution is as suitable. I can find one very brief reference to him in an Oundle history paper and he's not mentions in the relevant public schools sections of Wisden from 1946 or 1947, although he appears in the stats in the 46 edition (14 wickets at 21 - third or fourth on the Oundle list for the 45 season). I can't find a Wisden obit and The Times didn't write a report on the first-classmatch he played in (but was writing about Eton v Harrow at the same time...). Specialist Oundle or TA sources might turn up something a bit more of course, but I think we're going to struggle here to find anything effective in terms of sourcing. I'm not sure that his work as an author will meet that criteria either, assuming it's the same person. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NSPORTS says "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." This has only that. Reywas92^Talk 08:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Once this is deleted, as seems very likely, might the name "Michael Hardy" usefully redirect to the country musician whose article is linked in the hatnote, who has this name but is only known by his surname? Seems reasonable if there is (in one very large country at least, even if scarcely anywhere else) a more notable person of this name. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Yang

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

not yet notable. Placement of one of the multiple Forbes 30 under 30 lists is not a reliable indicator of anything, , nor is a second-place finish in a high school science fair DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an original nominator for redirect and after some discussion this page may be best to delete based on little sourcing available. General lack of scientific accomplishment could also be stated. Dr.Callahan (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these "30 under 30" lists have become excessive and in no way show notability. We have clear notability criteria for academics and Yang fails those.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. No effort made at the article, deleted. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Office 2022

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Microsoft Office 2022, as it currently stands, is only a rumor. SMB9 9thx my edits! 06:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article has been repeatedly tagged for CSD, but due to insistence from the author (by edit warring over tags), I think AfD is the best way to end this. If you disagree with me, go ahead and close this AfD. SMB9 9thx my edits! 06:12, 11 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. Tone 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cream Cutie

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

Not a notable product. Appeared on Dragon's Den in 2008, but no other coverage. Appears to be defunct now, but I'm not entirely sure. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 06:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable product/brand regardless of its association with Dragons' Den. Dunarc (talk) 23:38, 12 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. Tone 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowracer

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

Google test only finds the Stiga Snowracer, no sources for this band. The content of this article could easily be merged to Martin Landquist. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources, no discography cited, really short article...and it has been sitting here for 12 years. They have no sewiki entry either. The only thing that indicates some notability is the members, but this can be included in any of their articles. No separate article needed for this. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:56, 12 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. Tone 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jeon

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

WP:BLP1E. Coverage is only for the single event of war tourism in the Libyan Civil War, there does not appear to be any followup coverage in the last 9 years, and his role in the war was exceedingly minor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of the not news, one event, and the third criteria we need to add "not human interest", which is basically if all the articles on someone are human interest pieces they are normally not notable. Also in cases like this multiple articles may more reflect chournalism than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 15 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. Tone 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates Basketball Club

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

Not a notable amateur basketball team. I have no idea what the "CMG Competition" is. Their website and social media pages exist, but I find no other coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of being notable. None of their players listed have articles. --Bduke (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, non-notable amateur club. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 18 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. Tone 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramirez, California

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

Another railroad-siding-not-a-settlement. Mangoe (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another GNIs/Durham micro-stub with no reliable evidence of ever having been a populated place, much less one either legally recognised or a WP:GNG pass under WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 02:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per FOARP. It is not that many of these locations didn't exist at some point but the key wording is other than California's Geographic Names, so "no reliable souces, of ever having been a populated place". Just being "legally recognised" is not a green light for stand alone status. The sources can be used on Yuba County, California (where inclusion is unsourced) with the possibility of advancing that article class. Otr500 (talk) 12:52, 18 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. Tone 15:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High Street, Melbourne

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

A couple of streets that happen to share a name, unclear why they are described together or at all, with no assertion of notability or significant coverage about the streets among the many in the city. Reywas92^Talk 04:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:GEOROAD there is absolutely zero notability or historical or cultural significance and "Metropolitan Route 24" apparently does not have an article to merge to. The article is attempting to advance notability on two different streets. Otr500 (talk) 01:26, 16 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. Tone 15:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venture-X

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

Fails verification. I find nothing about this online (most results are about a coworking space called Venture X), and the only reference, "Smygazine", only has results of this page and OCR errors, suggesting that it may not exist either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do find a reference to it, a thread on a Swedish military message board from 2004. Nothing that works as a source. No mention of the 'zine used as a source. Nothing in the largest Swedish media archive. /Julle (talk) 15:30, 11 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) 02:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amitava Chakravorty

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

While he seems to be an emerging figure in a key political party of India, he fails WP:Politician. Created by a single purpose account WP:SPA Palmsandbeaches (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as per WP:Politician, may be deleted Pinakpani (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as per WP:Politician. Not done anything remarkable. The party post he is holding is a minor post. --Walrus Ji (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 18 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) 02:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mello, California

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

A siding which served some sort of grain-processing business, judging from the remains one can see on Streetview. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another GNIs/Durham micro-stub with no reliable evidence of ever having been a populated place, much less one either legally recognised or a WP:GNG pass under WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 02:44, 13 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) 02:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dantoni, California

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

It was and is an orchard, and in the past was also the SW end of a passing siding on a SP branch abandoned back in the early 1970s. I found this report of some labor unrest but seeing as how I don't have a book source for it, it couldn't have been very notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another GNIs/Durham micro-stub with no reliable evidence of ever having been a populated place, much less one either legally recognised or a WP:GNG pass under WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 02:50, 13 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) 02:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia, California

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

Due to label drift on the topos the GNIS coords are now in the middle of a suburban neighborhood, but going back far enough on the topos shows this was yet another isolated rail spot having nothing to do with any present settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 03:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another GNIs/Durham micro-stub with no reliable evidence of ever having been a populated place, much less one either legally recognised or a WP:GNG pass under WP:GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 02:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Mark Home

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

Fails WP:GEOFEAT. While listed on the National Register of historic places in the 80's, reviewing the nomination states it is only of local significance for architecture. There is no recent coverage per the WP:GNG. ~RAM (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator despite my feelings on this lacking notability with the NRHP article, I will withdraw given TheCatalyst31's additional sources. ~RAM (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The standards for listing a site on the National Register of Historic Places are higher than Wikipedia's standards for notability, so sites on the National Register are almost always considered notable. And while it wouldn't matter if the sources were all from the 1980s and earlier, since Notability is not temporary, that's not true either; I found a news article from this year about the home and another news article from four years ago without even looking very hard. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - between the NRHP listing and the sources listed by TheCatalyst31, I think this passes WP:NBUILD (and the usual outcome is to keep NRHP-listed articles). Chris857 (talk) 05:24, 11 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 Jared Isaacman. Missvain (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harbortouch

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

Previously deleted page with no notability. Fails WP:CORP. Potential candidate for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 ~RAM (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~RAM (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jared Isaacman, its founder and co-CEO. If Draft:Shift4 Payments ever makes it out of draft, we could redirect it there instead. Woodroar (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Woodroar, I agree with a redirect to Draft:Shift4 Payments. It appears that page was previously declined before they became NYSE listed. ~RAM (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that Shift4 Payments is notable and should probably have an article, I just don't think that draft is it. I commented on the sourcing issues a while back at Draft talk:Shift4 Payments because most of it is unreliably sourced and UNDUE. A reliably-sourced (and policy-compliant) version would be two or three sentences, one or two about the IPO and (maybe) one about an acquisition. I guess my concern is how much could it mention Harbortouch without making the redirect confusing to readers. I'm really not sure. Woodroar (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Woodroar, a subsection with a redirect would probably work, if Harbortouch is a subsidiary of Shift4. If not, going to the founder's page would be most appropriate I would think. You seem to know more about this company than I do. ~RAM (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 02:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested or delete. I do not seem any claims of notably in the article, and nothing jumping out at me in google. Jeepday (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jared Isaacman, since they're cheap. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:20, 18 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) 02:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Base4 (software)

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

No independent sources and none found for this defunct software product. Article makes no claims of notability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a copy of this page on another wiki. Notability aside, it should probably be removed per WP:CSD#G12. ~RAM (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Without investigating too deeply, I assume it's far more likely that wiki copied us. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:36, 11 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) 02:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kappa Delta Sorority House at Washington State University

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Not on the National Register of Historic Places, just near one. Sources that mention the house appear to be either by Kappa Delta sorority, or by Washington State University. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Ref 8, that it is in the French Ecletic Style is either from the school nor the Sorority, but rather from the State Department of Archeology and Preservation and the Kappa Delta House is pictured as one of the examples. Not sure that makes enough of a difference, but it should be noted.Naraht (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct (though I see it as ref 9), I misread the citation and thought it was Washington State University's Department of Archaeology, not the State of Washington's Department of Archaeology. It's still a trivial mention, the only content about the sorority house is the picture. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed that it is Trivial, my comment was more for completeness.Naraht (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything to meet wp:GNG in the article or with google. Jeepday (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not the level of sources we would need to show this residence as a notable building.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sources available to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 18 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) 00:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mastertrader

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

Unsourced article about a defunct online stockbroker. Article reads promotionally for Greg Capra, the site's founder. I can't find any substantial coverage, though there is a trivial mention in Day Trading for Dummies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of note, the NY Times article cited in the wiki page is at [11], and mentions Capra but not Mastertrader. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I could not find info that it is defunct, the current website is not about a brokerage, but about a consulting and training company. I also could not find much info online to justify a keep for this. As it is it lacks significant coverage and does not meet notability. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability claims in the article are mostly along the lines of "one of the" (many). My google did not find anything to meet WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 00:50, 17 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 00:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Nightmares

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

Not a notable band. Article has existed since 2008, but was recently hijacked to be about a different non-notable band from Wales; I can find minimal coverage of other non-notable bands of this name ([12] [13]) but nothing whatsoever about a band of this name from the Czech Republic; could be a WP:HOAX. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They have no article on the Czech WP either, and the lack of members and discography might suggest this is a hoax. Sources are absent. I think this can be speedied, but maybe others have found something. How did this manage to stay here since 2008 beats me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that any band under this name was ever notable Spiderone 11:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The band's bland name makes searching difficult. I tried things like <"The Nightmares" + "Czech" + "Martin Turek"> and found some minor social media chatter and database entries, plus several unfortunate mirrors of this WP article. Interestingly there is some chatter about that Wales band of the same name, and claiming that they are not THIS band. Otherwise, not one piece of reliable media coverage can be found. It's dimly possible that they existed, and it's even less possible that they were notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:34, 17 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.

^ "About – Shahi". Retrieved 2020-12-12.

[1] "About – Shahi". Retrieved 2020-12-12.