Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 18 January 20 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. North America1000 00:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taichung Municipal Taichung Girls' Senior High School

Taichung Municipal Taichung Girls' Senior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Google search gives only brief mentions from reliable sites and the official site of the school, which are not enough to show notability. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. 4thfile4thrank (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL and even if this is deleted there will still be an article on the Chinese Wikipedia. –Cupper52Discuss! 18:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In its current form, the article obviously fails WP:NSCHOOL. That said, there seems to be plenty of coverage from secondary sources, but the information just hasn't been transferred to Wikipedia. I'm not necessarily in favor or against deleting the article. I'm just making an observation. LeBron4 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the state of the article isn't relative to this discussion. As the above editor has found sources, we must keep it. WP:BEFORE is policy. Notability hinges on the available sources for the subject, not the references on the article. As with the vast majority of school articles nominated for deletion in the past six months, this nomination ignores that. It also ignores that according to Wikipedia's mission statement, we are supposed to be a gazetteer. Schools are important structures included in most gazetteers. 174.254.193.114 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to the lack of available sourcing that it would need to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Since all that comes up about it from what I can tell is a puff piece by Epoch Times. Which is both trivial as an article and likely from a non-reputable source anyway. The ones in the Chinese article don't cut it either. Otherwise, where are the in-depth reliable sources that are claimed exist about this? Because I'm more then willing to change my vote to keep if anyone can come up with them. In the meantime, I don't think articles about run of the mill things like the principle not running for reelection and dead links cut it for notability though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The two sources in the article are not IS or SIGCOV, they are from the government and the school websites. 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.   // Timothy :: talk  01:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 洪彩綸 (2019-12-14). "台中女中百年校慶　學姊齊豫回母校獻唱" [Taichung Girls' High School Centennial Celebration. Alumna Chyi Yu returned to her alma mater] (in Chinese). TVBS. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The article notes (translated from Google Translate)  "For the 100th Anniversary of Taichung Girls’ High School, more than three hundred 'sisters' reorganized the music team and performed at their alma mater, and the alumnae choir sang folk songs and gave their blessings. Even the alumna who graduated in 1975, the singer Chyi Yu also returned to her alma mater."

    2. 王子瑄 (2019-12-21). "台中女中校慶 驚見「千年一遇」美魔女" [Taichung Girls' High School Celebration. Surprising to See the Beautiful Woman]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The article notes (translated from Google Translate): "Taichung Girls' High School held its 100th anniversary celebration on the 14th, and the "Leyi Alumnae Celebrating Centennial" event attracted the most attention."

    3. 鄧木卿 (2020-09-03). "台中女中宿舍裝設人臉辨識系統挨轟　中市府：化解疑慮才能使用" [The Taichung Girls' High School dormitory installs a face recognition system. City government: it can only be used when you resolve doubts] (in Chinese). Eastern Broadcasting Company. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
    4. 吳淑萍; 葉弘傑 (2013-10-01). "台中女中畫紅區禁逗留　學生嗆：戒嚴？管小學生？" [Taichung Girls’ High School bans students from staying in the red zone. Students irritated: Martial law? In charge of elementary school students?] (in Chinese). Eastern Broadcasting Company. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
    5. "92：0！跟裙子說掰掰　台中女中可穿短褲進出校門了" [Say goodbye to the skirts. Taichung Girls' High School students can wear shorts to enter and exit the school.] (in Chinese). Eastern Broadcasting Company. 2016-01-22. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
    6. "短褲解禁開學氣溫僅10度　台中女中學生包緊緊進校門" [Shorts ban lifted and school temperature is only 10 degrees. Taichung Girls’ High School students pack tightly into the school gate] (in Chinese). Eastern Broadcasting Company. 2016-02-16. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.

      The article notes (translated from Google Translate): "Taichung Girls' High School is the only girls' school in Taiwan where students can wear shorts in and out of the school."

    7. "中女中學生再戰校方 70人穿短褲闖校門" [70 female middle school students fight the school again wearing shorts]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2015-10-08. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
    8. 洪彩綸 (2019-05-21). "遴選前！中女中千名學生連署反校長連任" [Before selection! Thousands of students in the middle and girls middle school signed the anti-principal re-election] (in Chinese). TVBS. Archived from the original on 2021-01-04. Retrieved 2021-01-04.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Taichung Girls' Senior High School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Sources such as "Taichung Girls' High School is the only girls' school in Taiwan where students can wear shorts in and out of the school" does not demonstrate notability.   // Timothy :: talk  20:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Unusual dress code' (so unusual as to be the only case in an entire country) commented on by independent-reliable-sources-etc seems notable to me. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments in 7 days and unclear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steve M (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. As I've said in the past, BEFORE should be treated with the utmost caution when you don't speak the language most relevant to the article's subject. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources shown by Cunard are enough to show a passing of GNG. The article, when it was first put up for deletion, was not in a state that showed notability but it's worth noting that some of those reliable, independent sources have now been incorporated Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm glad Cunard was able to find some sources. What exactly have we gotten out of those sources content wise that isn't extremely trivial, like that they a well-known marching band (however that's determined and verified) though? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Landis W. Garrison

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 23:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just say this has been a controversy. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jumbo (British band)

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

Non-notable band, could not find anything to suggest notability. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do? 23:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 01:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica at the Rugby League World Cup

Jamaica at the Rugby League World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOSOON when it was created in April 2020 as it is now. The 2021 Rugby League World Cup will, or will not, be held in the autumn, and until then, the page contains virtually no information. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece at the Rugby League World Cup. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Black Egyptian hypothesis

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

I am amazed that this page exists. An article on Ancient Egyptian race controversy can adequately discuss the ostensible topic of this page, but what is singularly remarkable about this is the claim that there is a "Black Egyptian hypothesis". Now go through the sources. You will see no source that claims that this idea, such that it is, exists as this article is so-titled.

Race is a socially defined construct and the identity of this or that person as a race is one that is best informed in the context of critical race theory as an academic discipline (I would ask that we keep intellectual dark web interlocutors on the WP:FRINGEs where they remain). As such, the attribution of race to a group of people is not done by means of any "hypothesis" such as the conceit of this article provides. Rather, it is either an object lesson or a political statement or an empowerment point or a discourse. Claiming it is a "hypothesis" is skirting with race realism of the sort Wikipedia has no business assuming.

The proper context of ideas related to this subject is at the broader coverage article. This article is essentially a WP:POVFORK. jps (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a reformulation of the article that satisfies NPOV, based on Vaticidalprophet's comments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POVFORK. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albeit with significant work to reduce POV issues specifically. This AfD strikes me as less of an AfD and more of a request for renaming and recontextualizing the article. The 'Black Egypt' stream of thought is, while fringe as all get out, significant in many subcultural contexts, and deserves a separate article on the basis of Ancient Egyptian race controversy needing to discuss multiple other racial theories in addition (and so only being able to discuss 'Black Egypt' so much before the page gets unwieldy). "This article has a bad title for what it is" is not "This article should be deleted". Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quick proposal for a new title: Afrocentric beliefs about Ancient Egypt. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be different from Ancient Egyptian race controversy... how? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple racial controversies regarding Ancient Egyptians, some of which are the modern Afrocentric position, some of which are different modern claims, and some of which are historical (e.g. many coming from the 18th/19th century, as noted in the article's intro). As it stands, the 'Black Egypt' position is the dominant form of Ancient Egyptian racial pseudohistory, with subcultural significance and a sizeable body of literature (of varying degrees of WP:FRINGE) discussing it. Ancient Egyptian race controversy needs to avoid being WP:TOOLONG or neglecting claims other than the Black Egypt one. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with your argument: Ancient Egyptian race controversy isn't particularly long and can easily accommodate the material in Black Egyptian hypothesis after the considerable overlap and especially after removing such POVFORK material as Black Egyptian hypothesis#Melanin samples. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient Egyptian race controversy in its current state is slightly below 50kB of readable prose, putting it in the WP:SIZERULE dead zone where it isn't confident making claims about splitting, but closer to the 'consider splitting' end than the 'don't split' one. As it is, a lot of this is Black Egypt-related, which I suspect is actually detrimental to the health of the whole article -- theories other than the modern form of Afrocentrism (both historical black claims and other claims modern or historical) are squeezed out by information covered elsewhere. Your given example of useless POVFORK material honestly doesn't strike me as such -- the degree to which that section, well, sucks is the degree to which its NPOV attempts are a token 'some people disagreed with this' that should be expanded before it should be struck. (I'm sure there are more criticisms of such a risible claim as "Egyptians were black because they had B-type blood".) Even after trimming and overlap, merging a 47kB article and a 35kB article is unlikely, to say the least, to get an article that isn't bloated. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as a quick additional claim on what might be in an Afrocentric beliefs about Ancient Egypt that isn't here, the pseudohistorical strain of Afrocentrism dabbles in claims that historical African (sub-Saharan or otherwise) societies had significantly greater cultural or technological advancements than they did, much like the equivalent claims made by European pseudohistoricists. A renamed and somewhat revamped article could touch on those beliefs associated with 'Black Egypt' in addition to the claim itself. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Afrocentric treatments of Ancient Egypt might be a worthy article, but you should be careful as Afrocentrism is not rhetorically equivalent to Eurocentrism as I think you are implying here. jps (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I get where you're coming from, though I don't think AfD is, uh, the correct venue for the broader discussion you're gesturing towards. To make it clear, I'm specifically referring to pseudohistory, not to competing historical frameworks. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudohistory is necessarily marginalized on Wikipedia per WP:FRINGE. An entire article on one particular pseudohistorical idea compared to another is exactly what this AfD is all about. Not to get all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on you, but I note, for example, White Egyptian hypothesis doesn't exist in spite of it being just as much of a thing as this article. An article on Eurocentric treatments of Ancient Egypt would deserve similar focus. This is all a long way around of saying that pseudohistory is best described in context and not as WP:POVFORKs. jps (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand WP:FRINGE (I know you do too, and that it's one of your areas of particular interest, so I don't mean to downplay you here). My experience with a pretty broad spectrum of fringe theorists just doesn't support a 'White Egypt' the size of the Black Egypt fringe, as a proportion of how important those are to the relevant sorts of people who would be enticed (I suspect because of the way fringe theorists in the former sort of sphere tend to obsess over inclusion and exclusion of specific ethnic groupings). I don't think the POV-ness of this article is an inherent trait of it as many of the delete arguments are supposing; I think a cleaned-up version of this article would be presenting the Black Egypt pseudohistory in context. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The canard that Ancient Egypt was a white/European civilization is a well-known problem for the context of Egyptology. Perhaps your experience with the broad spectrum of fringe theorists extends only to those who are currently active? Alternatively, it could also be that the hidden white supremacy within parts of Egyptology might allow for more undue focus on attacks on any conceptualizations of Black Egypt while an underlying white supremacy is underscored. If so, any attempt to frame the pseudohistory as solely the realm of "Black Egypt fringe" is missing an important historical context. jps (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I get what you mean regarding White Egypt now (I'm familiar with the historical aspect, but wasn't pattern-matching it to the context). Nonetheless, I do think there's a difference in kind -- because, indeed as the article's POV leans into, there's a far more substantial attempt in modern (pseudo)scholarship to recontextualize Ancient Egypt as south of the Sahara rather than north of the Mediterranean. The fact that even with the articles split Ancient Egyptian race controversy dedicates so much of its almost-overlong prose length to Black Egypt specifically doesn't bode well, in my opinion, for the argument it should all be in the same place. I think having this separation gives us more room to talk about everything proportionate to the degree to which it matters, not less. (Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is quite different to what people usually read the title as meaning. I don't mean to accuse you of making that mistake, but I don't think it provides an argument in favour of deleting this article.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt work left to be done in the Ancient Egyptian race controversy article. The treatment of the section relating to this topic is, for example, clumsily handled. Race is not phenotype, for example, but a reader could easily miss this when reading the page we are discussing here or the page over there. AfD is not CLEANUP, but the argument that we have something salvageable here is not particularly convincing considering the context is so clearly missed even on the page from which this POVFORK was spun off. jps (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Race is a social construct which has no meaning outside of the construct in which it is applied. To claim any modern race for ancient Egyptians is always an act of illegitimate pseudohistory because it involves falsely treating race as a real thing instead of the social construct it really is that has no biological reality, and no meaning beyond the cultural framework in which it is applied. Thus China has 55 recognized ethnic groups, which function exactly like how ever many racial groups we have in the United States. Thus Myanmar has something like 85 defined races. Thus I war on the use of the word "Caucasian" to refer to anyone except those from the nation of Georgia, from Abkazia, from Chchnya, Dagastan, Ossetia and the surrounding areas in the Caucuses, because it is built on the false and disproved idea of primal pure racial identities. This whole "Black Egyptian hypothesis" is built on fundamentally wrong ideas about race, about cultural transmission, about the nature of culture, and much much more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a WP:TNT situation, personally -- I think there's quite a lot of usable information in the article as exists, even if it could do with being a fair bit better. (It's certainly in far, far better shape than some articles I've seen go through AfD with TNT suggestions and come out the other side kept.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, after fixing the obvious pov issues (I tried to do that before but lost interest after a biased (and apparently jobless at the time) person started edit-warring more than 3 editors including me). I agree with @Vaticidalprophet: a rename also seems like a good idea. I don't think it's a fork considering how influential these ideas were and remain to this day. It's certainly the most significant part about the controversy on ancient Egyptians' race. MohamedTalk 05:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: superfluous fork of Ancient Egyptian race controversy. - Sumanuil (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, this article was created because POV-pushers kept loading the full "explanation" of their POV into every article on Egyptian history, which resulted in having to manage parallel edit wars in multiple articles simultaneously. It was easier to manage the issue by concentrating the pseudohistory in a singe dedicated article, and then simply linking every other instance to the one article. Also, Ancient Egyptian race controversy is about the history of the controversy, and we specifically agreed to exclude all the "justifications" and hypotheses of the various proponents. Putting this pseudostuff back into Ancient Egyptian race controversy would be destructive on that side, and deleting it altogether would give the POV-pushers an excuse to start over and upload their "evidence" in multiple places once again. The "hypothesis" has a large following in certain corners, and an article needs to exist. I don't mind what the new article is called. I agree that it needs work again - it is regularly ploughed up by POV-pushers anxious to "prove" their view. Wdford (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that there is no reason that we need to include a detailed accounting of a lot of the nonsense. Sometimes higher-level analyses are better than getting into the weeds. I think an article on the history of the controversy would be interesting, incidentally, which might be a better way to do a content fork from Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Right now, it's hard to see the context of the racial theories and eugenics that dominated a lot of Egyptology treatments from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. jps (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll just meekly point out here that shunting off POV-pushers to a spin-off article is essentially the definition of POVFORK. I don't think it is a good way to handle problems like the ones you are encountering. jps (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I also advocate for a more scientific title : Ancient Egyptian phenotypes Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would that make this merit a separate article? It would still be largely redundant. - Sumanuil (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phenotype is an entirely different thing from race. It would be a totally different article and I'm not sure we would have enough sources that would discuss phenotypical attributes of ancient Egyptians per se. Genetic studies of ancient Egyptians might be a worthy article as well, but it would necessarily marginalize the race controversies since the canard that race is genetic is just that. jps (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes that's precisely my point, and I believe it would be sensible for statements (regardless of their association with social constructs) which are consistent with historical and scientific consensus and provide accurate information about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes to remain. I believe there would be enough sources that would discuss phenotypical attributes of ancient Egyptians (such as dark skin, which can also usefully be called black). Indeed, an organism's phenotype is determined by its genotype. As such, Ancient Egyptian phenotypes and Ancient Egyptian genotypes are both in agreement with the consensus that ancient Egyptians showed a variety of skin phenotypes including dark skin. I personally don't believe we should be concerned with marginalizing the race controversies. Ancient Egyptian phenotypes (and therefore Ancient Egyptian genotypes as well, including those associated with dark skin) are a reality which is in agreement with current scientific consensus. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You argued "keep" but then recommended changing the title of the article to something that corresponds to a completely different topic. There is a contradiction here. jps (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your opinion. Yes, I vote keep. That I am "recommending changing the title of the article to something that corresponds to a completely different topic" seems an exaggeration. I recommend changing the title, to Ancient Egyptian phenotypes, and it would be sensible for statements (regardless of their association with social constructs) which are consistent with historical and scientific consensus and provide accurate information about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes to remain. Statements of evidence that Ancient Egyptians demonstrated dark skin (a phenotype), are very closely related to the idea that many Ancient Egyptians could be called black. I believe the statements are historically and scientifically valuable. Of course, the consensus remains that ancient Egyptians showed a variety of skin phenotypes including dark skin. It would be preferable, as I am suggesting, if the article reflected consensus to a greater extent. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can keep so-called "statements of evidence" in a new article called "Ancient Egyptian phenotypes" if you have sources which demonstrate that such statements are relevant to specifically identified phenotypes. There is nothing to prevent you from creating that article right now. I fail to see why we should keep this article, then. jps (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, I would replace the title of the current article (of which I also believe sensible statements which provide information about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes should be kept), or create an article titled Ancient Egyptian phenotypes, if consensus agreed with the proposal. If I am assured that there is consensus over creating an article titled Ancient Egyptian phenotypes, I will create and contribute evidence to it at once. I have no indication currently that there would be consensus over such a proposal, and I am not inclined to waste my time. I am also grateful that you are supporting my suggestion, thank you. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having not seen a draft or any proposed sources on phenotypes, I cannot say I support any suggestion beyond the abstract idea that this is a possible way forward. My larger point is a lot of this discussion is irrelevant to the question of whether to delete or keep this particular article and your arguments do not really address that. jps (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen interesting sources and I believe that your support, while it rests on faith alone, reflects good intuition. My arguments are that I would be astonished if this particular article did not contain any valuable information whatsoever about Ancient Egyptian phenotypes. Personally, I am vehemently opposed to destroying valuable historical and scientific information. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the article is here for the asking. If you can point to any valuable information in this article that would be lost if it were deleted, let us know. jps (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who's us? Or do you refer to yourself in the first person plural? I reviewed the page and I believe the cited material is valuable information. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am going to use the term black to refer broadly and conveniently to darker skin phenotypes (including very dark). I have quickly reviewed the article (and other related articles on Wikipedia). It seems obvious from the way the material is cited, as well as arguments generally, that some people really want to express the idea that some ancient Egyptians (including rulers) were black (at times at the expense of the quality of cited material). It also seems to me that the evidence indicates that some (obviously not all), were in fact black. Does anyone actually disagree that some ancient Egyptians, including rulers, could be referred to as dark or very dark skinned? – On the other side of the argument, some people really do not like the idea that any ancient Egyptians (especially rulers) were black (whatever their motivation, and at times regardless of the evidence). Sentiment intrudes the discussion and power is leveraged to maintain a reality that does not reflect the truth (on either side). – It doesn't take half a brain, to see that the titles 'Black Egyptian hypothesis' and 'Ancient Egyptian race controversy' are completely inadequate and strategically aimed at framing an argument and perpetuating a carefully crafted reality. Of course it's a shameful act to oppose truth, and when hypocrisy is revealed on either side over time the exercise is as doomed as it's ever been. This is what is currently happening. – Does anyone truly expect that truth will become less discernable or accessible over time? Evidence mounts, truth continues to become more apparent, titling an article 'Black Egyptian hypothesis' is not a very sensible decision after all and the experiment failed. Short term solution (for some)? Delete the article and much of its valuable content, and retreat to 'Ancient Egyptian race controversy' to maintain what's left of a crumbling, carefully crafted framework to continue to oppose (delay, rather) truths. – Information will continue to become more accessible, evidence (not opinion or sentiment) will continue to increase, people will become more educated over time, and the balance of power will shift (in favor of truth, not argument). Arriving at the truth is necessary and inevitable while (I personally find) debating about phenotypes to be a terrible waste of time and not very interesting. On the other hand, Egyptian culture is fascinating and anyone interested in history will note that it had an incredible influence on the development of western societies. – I understand that individual reality (not truth) is precious to many. I recommend abandoning the realm of strategic 'hypothesis' and 'race controversy', and directing the discussion towards more universal realities and verifiable claims (e.g. Ancient Egyptian phenotypes). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To keep and reframe (not delete). Wikipedia is a majority rule and if presently the majority is in favor of wasting energy discussing framed arguments ('hypothesis' and 'race controversy') and veiling science and history, it cannot be helped. The world will look on, deplore the lack of integrity when it comes to matters of physical appearance historically considered, and will deem aspects of Wikipedia deeply unreliable when it comes to Ancient Egypt. It's a shame, because generally Wikipedia is a great resource. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence in the third paragraph of the article states that "Mainstream scholars reject the notion that Egypt was a black (or white) civilization". This statement is is accompanied by three sources. If this is in fact false, it should be removed from the article, but because it is well sourced it should be maintained. As is noted at the Ancient Egyptian race controversy page, "The current position of modern scholarship is that the Egyptian civilization was an indigenous Nile Valley development. [1][2][3][4]"
  • The operative point here should be that the concept of a "black" race is a modern one, as is the concept of a "white" race. As social constructs rather than biological realities, it is spurious to read these concepts into the distant past. Ancient Egyptians did indeed depict themselves as having a variety of skin tones (often darker than their neighbors in the Levant and lighter than their neighbors in Nubia, though this was hardly universal), and would have been baffled by our modern binary distinction between "black" and "white". Thus the issue with the "Black Egyptian hypothesis" is not that it's been falsified, but rather that it's so poorly formulated it's "not even wrong". Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point now, and I do like the idea of moving away from terms that reflect strict social constructs and are not scientific (which is why I argued for a different title and direction for the article; e.g. Ancient Egyptian phenotypes). I also believe that editors should be very careful not to leverage the notion of moving away from strict social constructs as an excuse to deny actual biological realities. Obviously, it seems to me (and to lend itself to common sense) that when many individuals use or have used the term "black", phenotypes are implied. In other words, we shouldn't advocate banning the use of the word "black" in order to prevent individuals from sharing facts regarding Ancient Egyptians who presented phenotypes (such as dark skin) which some individuals in the past and today associate with the term "black". It shouldn't be surprising also that many individuals will be eager to share such facts in present and future, as in the past discrimination on the basis of physical appearance discouraged it. In this sense, for e.g., the article could be retitled Black phenotypicality in Ancient Egypt. As some Ancient Egyptians and Ancient Egyptian rulers indeed presented phenotypes (such as dark skin) which some individuals usefully associate with the term "black", the article would have the potential to be neither a hypothesis, nor controversial. A "Black Egyptian hypothesis" section to the broader article could address the hypothesis specifically (as far as I know, some held this view and it could still be given proper historical treatment and criticism). All that being said, I tend to favor the broader Ancient Egyptian phenotypes suggestion (and perhaps a section dealing with Black phenotypicality, to accommodate encyclopedic content from the present article). Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Early dynastic Egypt, by Toby A. H. Wilkinson, p. 15
  2. ^ Prehistory and Protohsitory of Egypt, Emile Massoulard, 1949
  3. ^ Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review" in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, eds. Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. pp. 62–100
  4. ^ Sonia R. Zakrzewski: Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state – Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton (2003)
  • Delete. I'm amazed that there is even a discussion here. This is an obvious WP:POVFORK and must be deleted. Regardless of the merits of the article, a POVFORK is emphatically not the way to solve a disagreement about content. Tercer (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 19:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Ali (Omani cricketer)

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

Nothing notable about him, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment - Now now, if we're stretching this to international cricketers, we have to be careful. This man was an international cricketer. If we start deleting international cricketers, this starts setting a frightening precedent. You make it sound like he came around to have a knock-about. I'm assuming Omani cricketers from this time do pass CRIN. The rules changed a million times. Bobo. 22:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider • Spider's edits) 23:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your SYNTH and OR. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you do not disagree. Or are you standing by your original claim that these are "top-level matches"? wjematherplease leave a message... 14:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of exoplanets discovered in 2018. — The Earwig talk 01:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KELT-21b

KELT-21b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The object is not that notable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 01:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greece at the Rugby League World Cup

Greece at the Rugby League World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOSOON when it was created in April 2020 as it is now. The 2021 Rugby League World Cup will, or will not, be held in the autumn, and until then, the page contains virtually no information. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 01:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Zilberman

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Received a common award. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make him notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not remotely a notability standard. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 01:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Kapoor

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

No indication of nobility. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  JGHowes  talk 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaram Ramineni

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

Promotional and non-notable BLP. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG RationalPuff (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment You didn't state how the subject is notable. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Nobility is not inherited merely serving notable clientele WP:NOTINHERITED RationalPuff (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that his coverage amounts only to directory-type listings has not been rebutted. Sandstein 08:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Jürgen von Cramon-Taubadel

Hans-Jürgen von Cramon-Taubadel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable military officer. Article is almost entirely unsourced and a search yields almost no coverage in WP:RS. Tagged for notability since 2016. Recently DePRODed without explanation. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is covered in several books including Jagdgeschwader 53 ‘Pik-As’ Bf 109 Aces of 1940; Jagdgeschwader 54 Grünherz and Bf 109D/E Aces 1939–41. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty dubious. I don't see how books which self-consciously consider themselves directories (especially with such a narrow scope!) can possibly establish notability, especially WP:SIGCOV. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moms for America

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

Non-notable organisation, even in the context of the Capitol storming. They are not even mentioned in some of the sources and I can't find any significant discussion of them in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 16:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 16:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added information about MFA's stated core principles, as well as for their related 501(c)(4) organization Moms for American Action; included content from their January 7, 2021 press release about January 5-6, 2021 events; and added a number of pre-2021 media stories about their activities. I hope this addresses concerns that have been expressed.Spoonriveranthology (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Geschichte (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Rankin

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — The Earwig talk 01:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Su Changlan

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

Subject lacks independent sources. Fails in passing WP:GNG Setreis (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Setreis (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Engr. Smitty Werben 13:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is well sourced and almost has enough to not have the template below:

{{More citations needed}}. –Cupper52Discuss! 16:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may not vote twice on this. STSC (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. I honestly forgot that I had voted on this. My brain wasn't working, I guess. LeBron4 (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sheridan, Michael (2016-05-15). "What are my rights to freedom of speech? - No results returned China". The Times. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The article said about Su Changlan, "Amnesty has been following the case of Su Changlan, a classic illustration of how the arbitrary power of the state is turned on an individual who dares to stand up — in this case, for women's rights. If Bao saw books as weapons, Su instinctively turned to social media." The article said that Su was 44 years old on 15 May 2016. She taught primary school in Guangdong. Around a decade ago, law enforcement officers bearing weapons and bulldozers visited the Three Mountains, a village where she lived. The aim was "to throw the farmers offthe land and turn it over to developers in collusion with local officials". Su was the driving force behind a crusade to protect the legal rights of the farmers. Although the effort was unsuccessful, it spurred Su to transform into an activist who started to concentrate on the rights of women and children. People related to her how women and children were being abused and raped in "China's bleak factory cities".

      The Times noted that "By 2014 Su was well known for campaigning for an end to violence against women and against the practice of early or forced marriages. She helped victims of the coercive family planning regime, a source of revenue and power for bureaucrats who subjected women to forced abortions and sterilisations. In short, she became a thorn in the flesh of local officials." The article spends several more paragraphs discussing Su Changlan.

    2. "Editorial: Beijing's outrage hard to swallow". Taipei Times. 2018-12-13. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The article provides one paragraph about the subject: "As one example, the report cited women’s rights activist Su Changlan (蘇昌蘭) who was arrested after voicing support for democracy activists in Hong Kong and jailed for “inciting subversion.” Su spent three years imprisoned in an 80m2 cell with more than 50 other inmates; by the time she was released she was suffering from severe heart, liver and gallbladder problems, largely due to inadequate care for a pre-existing condition."

    3. "2 Chinese supporters of H.K. "Occupy" protest sent to prison". Kyodo News. 2017-03-31. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The article notes that Su Changlan, who on 31 March 2017 was 45 years old, received a three-year prison sentence from the Foshan Intermediate People's Court. Sue had posted on the Internet images of "the territory-wide road-blocking protest in Hong Kong in 2014". After the ruling, 20 people in Hong Kong protested at the Central Government Liaison Office, urging the government to release Su.

    4. "China releases activist who supported HK democracy". The Straits Times. Agence France-Presse. 2017-10-26. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The article notes about Su Changlan, "Her case drew international attention at a time when Beijing was ramping up its crackdown on civil society, targeting everyone from human rights lawyers to celebrity gossip bloggers." The article notes for stating on social media that she backed the 2014 Hong Kong protests for democracy, she was taken into Chinese authorities' custody in Guangdong on October 26, 2014 received a prison sentence in March 2017 for "inciting subversion of state power". She was released by October 26, 2017, following her completion of her three-year prison sentence. According to Amnesty International, Su experienced a worsening of her health after being in "cramped" and "unhygienic" confinement.

    5. Lai, Catherine (2017-03-31). "An 'absurd verdict': Jail terms for China activists who voiced support for Hong Kong's pro-democracy Occupy protests". Hong Kong Free Press. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The article said she was convicted because of "articles she submitted to overseas websites such as Canyu.org, and the Women’s Rights in China website".

    6. Wu, Venus; Wong, Katy; Pomfret, James (2017-03-30). Perry, Michael (ed.). "Two Chinese activists who backed HK democracy protests jailed". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The article called Su "a prominent women's rights advocate in Southern China".

    7. Lin, Xin; Na, Hei (2017-06-27). Mudie, Luisetta (ed.). "Fears Grow For Health of Chinese Women's Rights Activist Su Changlan". Radio Free Asia. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The article noted that her husband is Chen Dequan and her brother is Su Shangwei. The article noted that after her husband visited her in jail for the first time on June 22, 2017, he discovered that "Her health is much, much worse than it was before".

    8. "中国两维权人士声援香港"占中"获重刑" (in Chinese). BBC Online. 2017-03-31. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The BBC called Su "a well-known Chinese women's rights advocate".

    9. "聲援占中 陸維權人士蘇昌蘭被判3年". China Times (in Chinese). 2017-03-31. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The article noted that Su was represented by the appointed lawyer Liu Xiaoyuan who said she was convicted in fewer than three minutes.

    10. 周虹汶 (2017-04-01). "中國女師聲援佔中 被判3年". Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      Liberty Times called Su "a pioneer of the feminist movement in Guangdong, China" and said, "In 1999, she became the representative of the rights protection of landless farmers in Foshan, Guangdong."

    11. 董筱然 (2017-03-31). 劉白 (ed.). "大陆民主人士声援"占中"获罪7年半" (in Chinese). Sound of Hope. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.

      The article notes: "Former elementary school teacher Su Changlan has been concerned about rights protection and civic movements in the mainland for many years. During the Occupy Central in 2014, she used WeChat Moments to support Occupy Central and forwarded Occupy Central’s pictures many times. In October of the same year, the CCP police summoned Su Changlan for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”. He was later arrested for "inciting subversion of state power.""

    12. "因"煽颠"入狱的维权人士苏昌兰刑满获释" (in Chinese). Deutsche Welle. 2017-10-24. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
    13. "遭拘押两年多 苏昌兰、陈启棠因"煽颠"获刑" (in Chinese). Deutsche Welle. 2017-03-31. Archived from the original on 2021-01-25. Retrieved 2021-01-25.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Su Changlan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 01:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mearaj Tabasilotfabadi

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

Looks to fail all applicable notability guidelines including WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Sources are all unreliable and I found nothing better myself. Being on Spotify, Amazon Music and YouTube are all weak claims to notability. Even if we assume that the sources are reliable and independent they do nothing to explain how exactly this person is supposed to be notable. Spiderone 14:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hariz Kamaruddin

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

Fails WP:GNG; no coverage found under "Hariz Kamaruddin" or "Hariz Kamarudin". Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as per GSA, Soccerway and Footballcritic. The only appearances recorded are youth internationals and a cup game for Johor's reserve team, neither of which count towards NFOOTBALL presumed notability. Spiderone 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Missouri Bank

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

WP:MILL small bank, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. MB 14:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 14:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MB 14:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Nouvelles

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

Created and maintained by undisclosed paid editor, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Legal threat from editor with COI for details. Have received some brief coverage in regional newspapers, but nothing that would indicate WP:BAND is met. FDW777 (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of notability. An article from the Garstang Courier (a very small local paper) has been mis-labelled as though it's from the Yorkshire Evening Post, a much larger regional newspaper. None of the other sources are remotely notable. The BBC link simply shows that one of the band's songs was once played on a local music show on Radio Lancashire Cavie78 (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a small correction. The article does appear to have been published in the Yorkshire Evening Post (as well as potentially other regional papers published by the same organisation), the archived version of the Yorkshire Evening Post redirects to the Garstang Courier version of the story. FDW777 (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're both Johnston Press newspapers which all use the same CMS - I highly doubt the article was ever published by the YEP Cavie78 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well the 24 August 2015 version of the article did include a direct link to the claimed YEP version of the article, and while I've been very suspicious about the claims made by a certain COI editor on the article's talk page I think it's reasonable to assume it was correct at the time, especially as the same article appeared in the sister paper the Lancashire Evening Post. Not that it really matters much either way. FDW777 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see Cavie78's guessing statement, that "they probably werent in the Yorkshire Evening Post" sic, is being countered by other editors who are no fans of the band's page - the band WERE actually cover page in the Yorkshire Evening News and it is good to see Cavie78 being corrected by FDW777 who started this whole fiasco - again. The band were as FDW777 now admits were widely covered in the Yorkshire AND Lancashire Evening Posts. Cavie78's post is duly proven spurious. Editors statements like Cavie78's is why wikipedia is getting so much abuse, "probably" a guess, duly proven wrong by someone meant to be agreeing with them!

Moving on, indie bands are exactly that, some want to stay off television and the press team is paid to ensure that. This does not mean that esp. with covid, a band should be deleted from wiki which would be an error of law, it is discrimination when the band has had national festivals and all the said worldwide releases and so on, all provided in this talk, most of which is agreed to even by opposing editors. Indie band activity during covid is near on impossible but this band have finished their vinyl album and passed it to a1m records, and MDW777 removed news of this, when their press tried to update the page. Editors for the group duly used covid time waiting to market the album, going onto help wikipedi to tidy up the page for the good of wikipedia and delete dead links. The band was then attacked for no reason. Legally the campaign against this band is one of harassment, discrimination, and abuse and hopefully the case for deletion is now closed by the evidence herein and about-to edits of the page to double lock that.

EVIDENCE:

1. UK national Sunday Newspaper coverage of the band's 1st single alongside names like Pete Tong and The Subways, who a court case would argue as having wiki presence, the discrimination against The Nouvelles is not only spurious but blatant:

Evidence https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/music/music-reviews/singles--albums-980512

The Daily Record is even bigger than the Yorkshire Evening Post or other Guardian Group regional newspapers, which are massive publications in their own right, simply regionally broken up.

2. The band 10 years later play the UKS leading indie band festival -

Evidence : https://www.kendalcalling.co.uk/artists/the-nouvelles

3. Here is Stone Roses book author and journalist John Robb on the group performing in late 2016, writing in the massive worldwide indie fanzine Flick of the Finger about a gig they sold out in what many say is the worlds number 1 indie venue:

"The Nouvelles are up first. And what a start to the evening. These guys are well rehearsed and as tight as a well fitted glove. The first thing I notice are the great bass lines that hit my ears from rhythm maestro Rob Regan, who works well with drummer Steve Atkinson. Guitar is provided by the very talented Tom Kinton, whilst the unmistakable vocals are provided by Johnny Jacko Jackson. They have strong tunes and give a great performance. Check out “Here She Comes”. It’s a great atmospheric tune and a sign of great things to follow."

Source : Leading world wide indie music fanzine/website : https://www.flickofthefinger.co.uk/reviews/2016/__trashed-9/ Venue : Leading world indie venue "Band on the Wall"

The sic 'great things/ put on hold by covid do not mean they have not nor will not happen. The album should be allowed to be discussed and put on the page without being edited, the vinyl is ready and simply no shops are open to sell it or spend money on marketing it.

4. BBC have provided the press team with proof of multiple BBC plays but it is members only to view, but a screenshot of many plays in one show alone can be provided privately but not posted on here due to DPA. However, here is a secondary source proving the said:

https://lovebelfast.co.uk/the-nouvelles-northern-irelands-song/

5. This also shows proof of a members role in the NI peace process which the Manchester Evening News also write about, which is a unique element of interest to any serious music journalist, as proven in 2013 by leading GMG journalist and now Editor at New Sounds David Sue:

Evidence : Front Page Supplement Manchester Evening News https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music/nouvelles-out-to-make-a-point-951498

Finally due to the loyalist political allegiances of this, one must now refer to wiki guidelines on any post relating to the NI peace process. Members have provided work for loyalism, and the process, and some of the editors who are trying to close the page have also shown (opposing) interests in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. In law this is central, in journalism key.

As for the page being deleted - any reasonable person will herein on reading this, reply to the toothless and contradictory "delete" argument (if with resepect it could be called that) by Cavie78 below, see that as spurious, let alone and err of law as follows: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.135.135 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I never said anything about actually cover page in the Yorkshire Evening News, that and your claimed Front Page Supplement Manchester Evening News is just you making up inflated claims again. Anyone remotely familiar with any of the regional papers you're talking about knows for a fact that articles on pub bands like The Nouvelles are tucked away in the entertainment section on somewhere like page 23, not on the front page of the paper or of mythical supplements. FDW777 (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to your lengthy post, IP - I know Wikipedia can seem frustrating to new users, but notability guidelines are there for a reason. Take a step back and think about what you're doing and how it reflects on the band. You are threatening to sue... Wikipedia itself? Some volunteer editors? because... it's the legal right of every band in the world to have a Wikipedia article? Note that neither Sonny J nor The Haze from your 2008 Daily Record link have pages on Wikipedia. A huge number of bands throughout the world receive reviews in local newspapers and have plays on local radio, but surely you would recognise that Wikipedia should not/cannot have pages for every one of those? At some point The Nouvelles may deserve an article, but right now they don't. Wikipedia does not exist as a promotional tool for bands, indeed editing of the kind you freely admit to is considered a conflict of interest. If you want to support the band consider setting up a website (which they don't appear to have), send singles off to radio stations - there are plenty of things you can do Cavie78 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian School of Bauan

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

This article was created earlier today and it has already been tagged for notability. This does not give enough significant information for it to be a Wikipedia article. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am also inviting everyone to participate to this sockpuppet investigation involving the user that created this article. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 01:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Krasnodar Krai

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

No sources used in the article, doesn't meet WP:NOTE and would serve more use as a description on the image in the Krasnodar Krai article, rather than a separate article. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with InterestGather Spinney Hill (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yana (surname)

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

Few if any references, with those linked fails to corroborate with article information. Intra-wiki links also seems to have been done entirely by author, with no little to no citations. Dark-World25 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See various edits by user [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and user created pages Angela Yana and Ruobo Yana Dark-World25 (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This appears to be primarily a Chinese Indonesian surname, which is a culture with a quite complex relationship with both Indonesia and with other SEA diaspora populations. The article has WP:SYNTH problems for sure, though, which clouds matters. I think this needs looking at with someone with experience with Chinese Indonesian naming customs, because they have some quite significant and idiosyncratic influences. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The user has spent a lot of time building up this series of articles with confusing scope overlapping existing articles about the clan. The sources are clearly fake. Even if the subject warranted an article, it would have to be entirely rewritten from scratch. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:TNT, and WP:SIGCOV. Currently this is a huge mess and there are zero reliable sources on the page. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of official and recognized football competitions at all variations

List of official and recognized football competitions at all variations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An even larger version of List of association football competitions combined with List of futsal competitions (and presumably other variations as well). An unnecessary duplication of information and maintenance, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Fram (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — The Earwig talk 01:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Londonderry (CDP), New Hampshire

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

I see in WP:GEOLAND that census tracts are usually not considered notable, and this seems like that. I don't normally work in this area, though, so I'm nominating rather than prodding to make sure this has eyes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm pretty sure census-designated places are different than census tracts, so I think this would meet GEOLAND. Hog Farm Bacon 01:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hog Farm, hmm, I'm not entirely sure about the distinction. What does seem fairly clear, though, is that this is an entity that exists only for statistical purposes and does not have any political or cultural recognition as a distinct place (my guess would be that 99% of the residents of Londonderry wouldn't be able to tell you whether or not they live within the CDP). Given that, I'd need to see some case for why this needs to be a standalone article before I'd consider withdrawing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This explains the difference pretty well. Essentially, a CDP is a community recognized by the US Census Bureau as being a center of population and I would say CDPs have the legal recognition to meet "legally recognized populated place". A census tract is a block division of a county that is not based on a community. So the Census Bureau views CDPs as individual communities, but census tracts are just for statistical purposes and are not viewed as a community. So my opinion is that CDPs meet GEOLAND, although since there's no clear-cut consensus on what counts as a "legally recognized populated place", others may disagree with me. Hog Farm Bacon 01:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Census-designated place defines them as a concentration of population defined by the United States Census Bureau for statistical purposes only; the "statistical purposes only" definitely gives me pause, but I'm curious to hear from others. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sdkb, In the area, there are lots of 'neighborhoods' that are well known. Pinardville in Goffstown/Manchester would be the equivalent. Just the CDP for Londonderry is the exact same name. See some other comments below where they voted keep. ~RAM (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A CDP usually means a place that does not have legally designated boundaries but which can be identified as a distinct place. The typical case in these parts is an unincorporated town, but in New Hampshire, a "town" is a political subunit which can encompass several settlements. That seems to be the case here: I think the coordinates are slightly off, as GMaps shows the label a bit to the NNW, but there is a distinct settlement there. I am not familiar with how this is handled in similar cases, but I personally do not think that CDPs per se are notable; it is the place they embody which is of note. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking at past AFDs of CDPs you've got Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyland Estates, Virginia (no consensus, 2020), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damariscotta-Newcastle, Maine (keep, 2006), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bull Run Mountain Estates, Virginia (keep, 2020), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winterport (CDP), Maine (redirect, 2007, since split back into its own article), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhlenberg Park, Pennsylvania (no consensus, 2020), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Haven (CDP), Connecticut (delete, 2006), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Searsport (CDP), Maine (no consensus, 2005). So I'm mistaken in my belief that there's a consensus that these things pass WP:GEOLAND. Striking my previous !vote to do some research re GNG. Hog Farm Bacon 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: Most of those that weren't kept were either duplicates of existing articles, questionable closes from many years ago that would not have been closed that way now, or, in the case of North Haven, not a CDP at all despite the title. There is clear consensus that actual CDPs that aren't duplicate articles are notable. That being said, under the circumstances I'm undecided if this meets the latter requirement. Smartyllama (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Londonderry, New Hampshire. After thinking this over, since the CDP is completely located within Londonderry, there's extremely little beyond census stats that can be said separately about the CDP. With no consensus that CDPs pass GEOLAND, I'd say the most logical thing to do here is merge some of the content into a new section about the CDP within the Londonderry article. Hog Farm Bacon 04:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge to Londonderry, New Hampshire. New England is a bit weird that it has CDPs within incorporated towns, but that's because NH is entirely subdivided that way. There's a lot of these though, e.g. this is adjacent to Derry (CDP), New Hampshire within Derry, New Hampshire so it may be better to just keep these for consistency. Switch between the "Cities" (which includes CDPs) and "Towns" (which are New England towns) tabs here for illustration. Reywas92Talk 07:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In general, CDPs are notable and deserve their own articles. Most CDPs in New Hampshire refer to the compact village centers within the larger New England town of the same name, and as such are clearly distinct entities and are unquestionably notable. Others, like East Merrimack, New Hampshire, and arguably this one, are in towns where suburban development has covered over any former compact settlement. We have, in fact, gone back and forth in New Hampshire over whether the CDPs should have their own articles. The decision several years ago was that all CDPs should have their own articles, because the alternative was to post the CDP statistics in the corresponding town article, which made those town articles a dense mass of statistics. The current setup (separate CDP articles) is an imperfect solution, but the best one to the nationwide norm of having articles for CDPs. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ken Gallager: If you have the link to the most recent discussion, I'd be interested to check that out. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion, such at it was, was here. At the time, I was trying to preserve the single-article structure, but over time I was swayed by the argument that having the CDP statistics in the town article made the whole thing much less readable. --Ken Gallager (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ken Gallager, My thought for the CDPs in NH would be that if the CDP has the same exact name as the town or city, it be included within the main article, otherwise, it should be separate. I think that would solve some of the confusion, I saw on the discussion re: Peterborough that was a part of the discussion. Just my 2 cents. ~RAM (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the input. As you saw, we did try that for several years. I came around to the viewpoint of the Peterborough commenter that doing so made for an overly-tangled and confusing article. --Ken Gallager (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a distinct neighborhood (satisfying GEO) as well as CDP.Djflem (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 02:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opal|zukor(discuss) 10:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep instead of merge. The two articles maintain distinct, specific content in their Geography and Demographics sections, and I think merging the articles would make those sections messy and unclear. This article does a good job distinguishing itself from the township. ~EdGl talk 04:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chucklewood Critters

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

What makes this TV series notable? Almost all content is unreferenced. The purported cite to an encyclopedia (Happy Holidays--Animated!: A Worldwide Encyclopedia of Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and New Year's Cartoons on Television and Film) is misleading, as it mentions a Christmas-themed episode of the series but does not seem to have an entry on the series itself. The series does not seem to meet WP:GNG or N(Media) as it does not seem to have received any significant reception. WP:NOTACATALOGUE of TV shows. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Views split roughly equally between keep, merge or delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche of Brittany

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

This is nothing but a genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. The subject held no position of authority (having never even become a countess) and there is nothing to say about her other than who her parents, husband, children, and siblings were. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with the exception of the report of the 'vital events of birth, marriage, death and burial, and the list of children, all of the other sentences in the article have someone other than Blanche as their subject. A sentence about her husband's succession, a sentence about her son and daughter, a sentence about her daughter and grandson, etc. Even the listing of children and the naming of her mother in the lede seem partly intent on naming famous connections further removed rather than providing non-genealogical biographical details. The entire article is thus mostly about other people, nothing but the 'filling out' of a genealogical placeholder with peripheral details, rather than actual noteworthy biographical details about the subject. I am not seeing the level of significant coverage about her that would constitute notability. Rather than turning Blanche of Brittany into a redirect, I would prefer deletion and replacement with a disambiguation page that includes her unlinked name with a link to her husband or father, and also Blanche of Navarre, Duchess of Brittany. Agricolae (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The foreign language versions of the same article have more sources that assert a strong claim to notability. This source [7] has a weird story about Blanche getting permission from the pope in setting up a monastery near Paris. She was in frequent contact with the pope, it seems, and that seems to have been well documented. It also seems that she was in charge of the execution of the will of her husband, which died young, and the execution of which was somewhat controversial. After that, she was an advisor (dame d'honneur) to her granddaughter [8], the queen of France. The first source also has links to a significant number of other sources on her, some of which are in old French, and trying to read one of them made my head hurt. There's enough for notability here, despite a lot being lost to time. Acebulf (talk | contribs) 02:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe a weak keep. As mentioned above there are several sources that indicate notability. However, in the page's current form it might as well get deleted. It has been entirely copied from one of the sources, and there is barely any information about Blanche herself. She is notable enough for an article, as I see it, but it would absolutley need to be rewritten. Kaffe42 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her husband, unless the article is expanded to show what she did, apart from bear children. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While opinions are somewhat divided, the "delete" arguments are stronger: they discuss in some depth the sources (or lack thereof) covering the subject, while the "keep" side asserts notability, but except for Beccaynr they do not really explain which sources they base this view on. Sandstein 22:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Musoke-Nteyafas

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

We are back to this entry again. After being deleted in January 2018, the subject of this thin biography managed to enlist another contributor to add her to this encyclopedia again -- quite common a practice on Upwork and Reddit. I move that this entry be deleted, once again, for non-notability and it's creator be investigated. The only notability criteria is participation in obscure beauty pageants, supposed contributions to some newspapers (for which there is no evidence), and the claim that she is a poet. Yet, a Google search reveals that this "poet" has not been published anywhere significant other than platforms that accept all submissions -- platforms I submitted to as a 16-year-old "poet". The quick Google search also reveals nothing notable about the subject of this entry, other than vanity profiles they've created. There are many prominent Ugandans who deserve entries on this platform; this is not one of them. This person lacks any notability criteria at all and is, at best, a vain self-promoter. Cartney23 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the discussion we had two years ago produced the right result. I still think it is high time we start making every new article go through the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know what is meant by the claim that "the subject of this thin biography managed to enlist another contributor to add her to this encyclopedia again -- quite common a practice on Upwork and Reddit". To the best of my knowledge, I've never communicated with the subject of this biography. And if you'd like to investigate me, that would be lovely, but it would have been even lovelier to have pinged me first. Dsp13 (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Additional research and updates to the article seem to support WP:BASIC, including because "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Musoke-Nteyafas appears to have a multi-faceted, multi-national career, and there appear to be additional references available, including based on information included in the recently-added 2007 UGPulse profile. Beccaynr (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The edit and deletion histories seem a bit overrated in the deletion intro. We don't do spite keep or delete but look at articles and subjects "as is". And "as is" it currently passes the WP:GNG. Even without WP:NEXIST. So the choice is easy. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I'm very much in favor of more articles on Uganda and Ugandans. Especially historical figures. gidonb (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To the creator of the entry in discussion, it was my intention to ping you but it was hard enough working with this encyclopedia's outdated and archaic procedures to get it here, and I was not about to waste another hour figuring out other things. Same goes for the comment above this one on Ugandan historical figures; simplify stuff around here and many of us will contribute more. That said, irrelevant entries like the one in discussion, backed by "authoritative" sources like Ugpulse, convince most of us (Ugandans) that the "expertise" and "knowledge" that counts here is that of foreigners who could care less about what really matters. As for "spite deletions", maybe enlist actual experts on certain areas to sign off on articles concerning those areas instead of any Tom, Dick, and Harry -- and article creators hired off Upwork and Reddit. The subject of this deletion discussion has never been notable in Uganda. Cartney23 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify my comment above, the additions to the article also include sources supporting Canadian notability, including Musoke-Nteyafas being included in a published anthology (T-Dot Griots: An Anthology of Toronto's Black Storytellers), cited as a cultural critic in the Toronto Star, and her work for a Toronto-based African-Canadian magazine. Other additions to the article include that Musoke-Nteyafas has also been published by Black Academy Press, and her art has been featured and commented on by York University. More information about her inclusion in a poetry anthology is also now included, because it was the subject of reporting that explains how Dr. Chimdi Maduagwu, a senior lecturer in the Department of English at the University of Lagos, selected her work for inclusion in his self-published collection. The UGPulse profile describes Musoke-Nteyafas as "an inspiration to many people," and lists a variety of her other works that could be researched for potential further additions to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not finding enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that she meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per gidonb. The edit history is irrelevant and the article demonstrates that the subject passes WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I don’t see enough significant coverage in reliable sources for GNG. A lot of these sources are not reliable at all. Just blogs or primary sources. I think there should be a rule on Wikipedia that if an article has been deleted twice it should automatically be SALTed until an administrator gives permission, along with being presented a proper, well-sourced argument for it to be allowed to be recreated. Trillfendi (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article has twice been discussed in the past and has only once been deleted. gidonb (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While searching only under "Nteyafas," I also found an in-depth NOW Magazine article about Musoke-Nteyafas' participation in the Miss AfriCanada 2000 pageant, and I have added it to the article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Breaking it down, the notability has to come from somewhere, but it's hard to identify exactly where. She is a beauty pageant winner, but where the contest is non notable, that in itself isn't a whole lot to go on. She's had short pieces published in an anthology and a journal, but as an author or creative that wouldn't fulfil WP:Author. I don't think WP:Basic is fulfilled either. The only significant coverage I can find are two online profile articles which are a bit dubious in terms of reliability, and a third article referring to a 2000 beauty pageant. Significantly human interest reporting is often not considered as reliable, and at least one source isn't independent since it appears that she writes for the source/the article is a profile of a writer. --Vitalis196 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added information about a book of short stories published by Musoke-Nteyafas, and information from a review of the book, to the article. I also added information from a reference about Musoke-Nteyafas' participation in an art-related fundraiser, and a reference to her poetry in the Chicken Bones Journal. These additions appear to offer more support for WP:BASIC notability, which reflects Musoke-Nteyafas' multi-faceted career as a writer and artist. As to the notability of the Miss AfriCanada award, it seems notable because it was subject to in-depth, independent, reliable reporting that offered commentary about the event and Musoke-Nteyafas, per WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beccaynr With regards to the Miss AfriCanada award, Wikipeida policy relating to events like this is that while the event may be notable, someone is not notable on the basis that they won a competition or award. Beyond that, while you've located a lot of webpages which mention this person's name, the vast majority are not significant coverage. Of the twenty-two sources we're up to right now, only a couple of them are actually significant, in depth coverage of the person in question, the vast majority of the rest are relatively minor mentions or web pages which might not be considered reliable under WP:Reliability. Simply adding more sources doesn't make them more notable, and it makes this article's issue with WP:Puffery worse!Vitalis196 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To clarify my comment above, I should have referred to the in-depth coverage of Musoke-Nteyafas' participation in the Miss AfriCanada event by an independent and reliable source as contributing to her notability (and I should have noted that the source also provides independent biographical coverage). I also think that many of the additions I have made to the article help address the concerns raised by the nom, and show that over time, Musoke-Nteyafas has received critical attention from a variety of independent and reliable sources during her writer/artist/musician career that demonstrate notability, particularly per WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE. I have also added links about Musoke-Nteyafas' addition to The Black Canadian Network Black Canadian Awards National Wall of Role Models in 2014, which further seems to support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every source I looked at raised questions: is this a reputable publication? Is this significant coverage or trivial coverage? Overall I did not see anything that was significant coverage in a reputable publication. Inclusion of items like the Canadian refugee board research document is really not helping things. Possibly (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The Canadian refugee board research document could be deleted, because significant coverage from a reliable source has been added to the article to verify Musoke-Nteyafas' participation in the Miss AfriCanada contest, as noted above, so that source is no longer needed. Beccaynr (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolos Varnavas (Kato Polemidia)

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

Poorly sourced article which fails WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. –Cupper52Discuss! 13:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am new to Wikipedia, not sure where to add this info. I have just added a government source for Apostolos Varnavas area which clearly states it has its own Mucktar (local administrator) under the general area of Polemidia municipality. Thank you Yorgoswikiluv (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 12/01/2021, dear Cupper52 , if the article fails WP:NPLACE how comes it already is accepted in Greek version? Is it possible then that a topic/article can exist in one language and be legitimate there, but not acceptible in another language in wikipedia? Thank you for any clarifications Yorgoswikiluv (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different language wikis are independent and can (and do) have different rules. ~EdGl talk 21:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Tagishsimon who rejected the appeal I did after adding a government site source, I would like to discuss why he did not mention that I found a source. Does he /she think the source is not good enough. If so let me know. Im very happy to discuss. Yorgoswikiluv (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 02:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gui Amador

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

Non-notable musician on his own. No sources out there I could find on this individual. Andise1 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Erin Mills. There is a consensus to redirect. While a couple of redirect targets have been proposed, Erin Mills appears to have the most consensus. However, if editors remain interested further discussion may be appropriate. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Erin Mills

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

Article about a city neighbourhood, not referenced to any reliable sources for the purposes of getting it over WP:GEOLAND. As always, city neighbourhoods do not get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- the city itself obviously gets to have an article, but individual neighbourhoods within it qualify for their own standalone articles only if they can be sourced as the subject of reliable source coverage in their own right, in real media or books. But the footnotes here are a city-published GIS map, a problematic advocacy organization's proprietary ranking survey and a real estate agent's personal business website, none of which are the kind of sourcing it takes to make a neighbourhood independently notable. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
agree that a redirect to Erin Mills looks like the way to go. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirecting looks clear from the current comments, but there's some disagreement about where to send it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weingut Reichsrat von Buhl

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

I think it's non-notable, since the page only consists of primary sources; and I couldn't find any good sources for it. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet notability in WP:WINERY, which says, inter-alia, the notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which gives much consideration to a company that has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — The Earwig talk 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Horn

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NSPORT / WP:NGRIDIRON. Article sources and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.   // Timothy :: talk  02:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy :: talk  02:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (yes, the other football) defines a fully professional league as one in which virtually all adult players are paid a salary that they can live on and do not need additional sources of income. XFL players were paid a salary of over $50,000 (AGF me on this, can source it if need be) so to me that would lead backwards to the XFL fitting a standard of a fully professional league. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Cooperative Research Centre. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 19:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative Research Centre for Advanced Composite Structures

Cooperative Research Centre for Advanced Composite Structures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion of defunct non-notable organization; at minimum, upmerge with Cooperative Research Centre. fgnievinski (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like some discussion about why this should not be kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two re-listings, does not appear consensus can be reached. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 19:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bagudi

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

I failed to find any significant reliable coverage online. Fails GNG and other relevant subjective notability criteria. "Schools are not inherently notable either". ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles about schools on WP. From the text this one looks more notable than most. However the article does need more references and facts relarted by them. Some notable former pupils might help.Spinney Hill (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 11 January 2021 (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 run of the mill, normal, coverage. Sources in the article are all dead links. BEFORE revealed nothing.   // Timothy :: talk  20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The chain of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in India are generally notable. They are mostly located in the outskirts of the city and have better infrastructure than the state govt run schools. The language spoken in the area is Odiya which I cannot speak or read. The coverage we are looking for will be found in Odiya media. Looking at what I could find online[1] and the links present in the article I am making an assessment that it should be notable and kept. Walrus Ji (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "About JNV Balasore". navodaya.gov.in. Government of India. Retrieved 16 January 2021.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Territories of the United States. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American West Indies

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

No sources since 2009. A search doesn't reveal that there is such a thing. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Additionally, IP from where this was created had just a history of vandalism. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the sources you added which are sources for other things i.e. West Indies. Why did you do that? That is not the correct way to source information. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moani Hara

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

The sole clear claim to any notability I can find is a bit part in the 2017 film “Snatched”. I can’t find any BLP compliant sources to verify that, and without them, we should not have an article per WP:BLPDELETE. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the article to show notability. She is said to be a model. What kind of model? Has she she been used for a notable advertising campaign? Has she been painted by a famous artist? Does her photo appear on billboards in every North American and European country plus Australia,New Zealand,South Africa and India?Spinney Hill (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC) I have in fact removed two items of no importance whatsoever,thereby improving the article but making it look even thinner.Spinney Hill (talk) 10:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? The whole premise of the AfD as stated above is to judge consensus for "delete" or "redirect". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here is even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. She won Miss Hawaii USA 2014 (October 2013) and there is some later coverage arising from her being a correspondent for a local TV station as well as continuing to work as a model (August 2019). I will improve the article later today but I may not be able to figure out how to recast the infobox to emphasize the pageant win. I see the beauty pageant project's notability guidelines have been marked as inactive, but it appears a state-level Miss USA win would not clear that bar in any case; however, someone who knows the local news landscape may well be able to find more than I have in order to qualify her under WP:GNG. Could someone add this discussion to the list at the Beauty Pageants WikiProject, please? And pinging the article creator, MandiRodriguez7, who may have such knowledge, although I'm puzzled she didn't include this main claim to notability in the article. On balance I'm taking the continuing coverage as evidence that she does squeak by on GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Does not qualify for GNG. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 10:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Faith Tones

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

Article sourced only to self-published sources. It sure looks like this group is a hoax, but I can't find a single thing in any reliable source that demonstrates that, so it might be a non-notable hoax. FalconK (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Joseph

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

No evidence of notability. This appears to be little more than a CV. Grahame (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. A lot of the sources in the article are personal promotions. Although she has been the blockchain advisor to the OECD, I can't find any reliable sources that substantially discuss her (as opposed to companies she worked for). Most coverage just has passing mentions of her in the context of other stories. Deus et lex (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hartley R. Rogers

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

Article appears to fail WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. The two sources which significantly discuss a person are not about the subject, but about his father and his wife respectively. The other sources are either primary or non-significant coverage, and a Google search on my end has failed to turn up sources which pass the requirements laid out in WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 06:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the deletion process, so I apologize in advance for any errors (thank you to ThadeusOfNazereth for explaining the issues and sharing resources on the process). While Rogers isn't a household name, he is a notable and well-known figure in an area of finance with a high impact on society, and he's active in leadership of high-profile philanthropic work. There are sources that more directly address his notability that I didn't include because they didn't seem relevant to his biographical information: https://www.businessinsider.com/hartley-rogers-hamilton-lane-interview-2014-1 https://www.di.se/nyheter/boom-for-riskkapital-fortfarande-gott-om-affars https://www.buyoutsinsider.com/five-questions-with-hartley-rogers-of-hamilton-lane/ https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/HLNE/company-people/executive-profile/117863475

Would it be helpful to include those? Pogobryan (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Pogobryan[reply]

I've added additional sources that establish notability in financial services industry, including coverage in a major international business publication, as well as interviews in Business Insider, Buyouts Insider, Institutional Investor, and the Wall Street Journal. Pogobryan (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Pogobryan[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPECQUE

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

notability not demonstrated, just like all the other articles we've deleted over the years for model UNs. DGG ( talk ) 06:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A page about this project on the Université Laval site ([10]) describes its origin as an initiative by some international relations students there, but I don't think that provides enough indication of importance to the University itself to propose a merge into the Université Laval article. (A merger would also require finding of suitable references to support the article's claims, pruning of promotional wording, etc.) Elsewhere, there are occasional notices on the sites of other institutions, seeking participants, funding, etc., but these don't rise above trivial coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH. Overall, I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate that the subject of this article is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomos Roberts

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

Back in early January, the draft for this article was a staggering 95kb, thanks over 1500 edits and six months of work by its creator. I saw it around January 12 and thought I could see glimmer of notability. I trimmed it down and managed to get it published via AFC recently. Now that other editors have had a go at it as well, I question the notability, which hinges on one viral Youtube piece and its subsequent publication in book form. It may be either WP:TOOSOON or WP:BLP1E, or simply a GNG fail. Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse TLDR personal attacks that in no way contribute to this AFD. Take it to ANI. Blablubbs|talk 22:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Possibly is demonstrating a degree of contempt, malfeasance, bias, pettiness and animus the likes of which I have not witnessed on Wikipedia since I first joined, approximately six months ago.

It first began, rather suddenly, on or about 13 January. Possibly asked if I had a connection to the subject. I do not, though in creating the article, I did message his manager in order to obtain some menial details. It was as innocent as that. I further explained that "my dedication and hard work are in the service of Wikipedia, and my genuine goal or hope is to become a reviewer/editor/volunteer for the site. I believe, with additional experience and devotion, I can achieve this. I do realize that I've tackled a rather large project, but I remain undaunted and I assure you that I will continue to work diligently, even if I stumble along the way."

Possibly, then, asked if I was being compensated in any way. I am not. I explained the following... "I am not being compensated or paid in any way to write this article. I enjoy taking on challenges, especially those involving the composition or editing of various projects such as CVs, cover letters, letters of reference, medical school applications, government funding requests, letters of intent, etc. I'm able to undertake these projects in either French or English. But, ultimately, especially during these difficult economic times, I do not charge for my services. I simply don't have the heart to do so, tbh." Possibly responded with "I can't think of anything nice to say here". This was my first clue that something was amiss. I had honestly explained myself, but Possibly admitted that they couldn't think of anything nice to say.

I assumed that was the end of that brief, but odd interaction. It wasn't, however. Possibly would then take me to task for marking something as a "minor edit" when it, apparently, wasn't - no doubt, a simple mistake on my part, though I could begin to see a trend forming... one in which Possibly was looking for the smallest possible reason to hinder my progress or to create something where nothing existed. Please keep in mind that Possibly already stated, earlier, that they couldn't think of anything nice to say (to me/about me) - an admission of an unwarranted dislike of me for reasons I still can't explain.

Following this, Possibly warned that my use of the possessive pronoun "my" (as in, "my" article) was frowned upon and that the article didn't belong to me. According to Possibly, I was displaying "ownership". This is common parlance or phraseology (on my part), which represented something very innocent and harmless. This was yet another example of Possibly's way of demonstrating that, indeed, they had nothing nice to say about me, and furthermore, they were going to make sure that I was aware of their disdain for me. Now, at this point, I was, admittedly, becoming impatient. I think any reasonable person would have been.

You'd think Possibly would relent and allow me to continue working diligently and honestly as I had been. I'd be very mistaken. The harassment, as I began to interpret it, was just beginning. Possibly started deleting large portions of the draft without the courtesy of letting me know or the opportunity to discuss anything. Please keep in mind that it had only been a ONE day since the draft had been rejected. Possibly afforded me a single day to make the changes that were recommended to me (in the rejection of the draft). I had already begun to make changes and, in good faith, intended on making many more - as was required. Although it was permitted, I think most reasonable people would agree that it was premature of Possibly to begin indiscriminately removing entire sections of a draft that, until only a day earlier, they hadn't been involved with. I immediately asked that Possibly stop. It was happening so quickly and without discussion that I quite honestly believed that this was a case of vandalism. Please also keep in mind that none of this happened in a vacuum. Possibly had already showed contempt towards me and was consistently needling me (prior to the wholesale deletion of large portions of the draft). Following my admitted reaction of disbelief and near-horror, Possibly - as I would later find out - would have a fellow moderator chime in with false accusations of bullying (when, in reality, I was the one being bullied), claims that I was too attached to the draft, that I was being disrespectful and that I should apologize. Once again, this is one day following the declination of the draft. I was being gaslit - not only by Possibly - but by the their fellow moderator friend. (I later noticed that Possibly thanked the other moderator for coming to their defense)

I will admit that, in haste, and thinking that the draft was, indeed, being vandalized, I reverted all of Possibly's edits. I shouldn't have done this, but at the time, here I am thinking that the work I had invested was simply being deleted haphazardly and without warning or discussion.

If this is becoming unbelievable, it's not over! Undaunted, I would spend many more hours diligently working at implementing the recommendations made to me by other reviewers. I had reduced the draft to about 30% of its original size, though I was aiming for significantly less. This is when Possibly would make yet ANOTHER appearance. Possibly began, once again, asking for sources for 'this and that', though I hadn't yet been given a chance to make these changes. All other reviewers were so courteous and willing to provide me the time to make the needed changes. They seemed interested in encouraging me to improve and allowing me to learn how to better the draft. Possibly didn't allow for this and simply would NOT stop with the constant harassing, as I believed it to be. Possibly demanded answers and I wasn't interested in discussing anything with them at this point... and, given the way I had been treated (up until this point), can you really blame me?

Possibly would begin, anew, to delete large portions of the draft - once again, without discussion or warning. Then, once Possibly decided that it met their criteria and was, indeed, notable, they submitted the draft for review (without letting me know). I wasn't even provided the courtesy to submit the draft I had put so much work into. Possibly would, then, say the following (after submitting the draft): "A couple things. I have more than 40,000 edits on literally thousands of articles. I know what I am doing when I edit. Now, I have cleaned up the article to the point where it is quite close to being publishable. I would suggest waiting to see what the reviewers say (I submitted it again). Since you have pointedly avoided answering the very simple question of where you got the birth date, I have removed it except for the year." ... After everything I've described, I believe there's only one way to interpret this last comment and I don't think one needs to read too much between the lines.

I also noticed that Possibly wrote this on another reviewer's page... "Ha! Re: Tomos Roberts [...] That was some kind of ultra-layered baloney sandwich huh?" ... Possibly wrote this AFTER they submitted the draft for review, but prior to nominating for deletion. This is childish, vindictive, nasty and unnecessary!

Finally, Possibly continues to delete notable references from the draft because, if they're included, Possibly knows full well that the page is notable.

I would, kindly, ask that you take all of what I've written into consideration. This is far more than whether an article is notable. It is (notable). This has everything to do with vindictiveness, bullying, animus, 'pulling rank' and a determination to see someone fail. It's unfair, it's cruel and it's absolutely unwarranted.

Thankfully, there are some wonderful, helpful and courteous contributors and reviewers on Wikipedia and, ultimately, they provide me the encouragement to remain undaunted by one rotten apple.

Thank you, in advance and with respect, for your fair consideration.

ADDENDUM: I think it's only fair that Possibly and others refrains from editing the draft while it's being considered for deletion. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Ryancoke2020, we try to keep these AfD discussions focused on the subject of the article not on other editors. These essays have useful info: WP:Arguments to make in deletion discussions and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and WP:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. A short, concise policy/guideline-based argument on the merits of the article and subject's notability that clearly states why it should be kept (or deleted) can help. Then see how the discussion process unfolds. It takes a while to learn the idiosyncracies of Wikipedia, and it helps to not take things personally. It was I who brought up the article on my talk page with Possibly, who is a good faith editor WP:AGF, because I saw how hard they, and other editors, worked to help it pass Articles for Creation (AfC). I'm certain the baloney sandwich comment was not meant as an insult, but rather to illustrate how many layers had to be peeled off before the article was ready to pass AfC. You are a good writer and encourage you to continue to work on projects here whatever the outcome of this discussion may be. PS, anyone can work on the article. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone... Your diplomacy and kindness are nonpareil (unparalleled). I can understand the baloney sandwich comment (I actually enjoy a baloney sandwich from time-to-time... ha!), but having Possibly tell me, at our earliest interaction, that they couldn't think of anything nice to say about me is difficult to explain away so easily - an unwarranted comment on their behalf, demonstrating a level of animus that should disqualify them (insofar as this is possible) from being able to escalate things to this point.

An analogy, if permitted... Possibly is offering up the Wikipedia equivalent of the 'death penalty' (more or less) after demonstrating animus and contempt towards me in a very personal way. But, then, at the time of 'trial' (to keep the analogy alive), I'm not permitted or I'm being dissuaded in providing reasons to the "jurors" for which Possibly has an incentive in seeing me 'executed'. Again, this is simply an analogy.

Another example... I'm, in fact, a gay man. If an editor on Wikipedia - regardless of their proficiency - demonstrated bias against members of the LGBTQ+ community, would they be permitted to denigrate me, go after me ceaselessly, edit 'my' draft to death and, once they were done picking apart the work in question, nominate the page for deletion? Would this be permitted? What recourse would I have? I ask this in all sincerity.

I am NOT saying that Possibly is anti-LGBTQ+ - I have no basis for such an accusation at this moment in time. That said, my example is an instance where an editor can be very good at what they do, but carries a bias or prejudice. In my case, Possibly immediately demonstrated a bias - for reasons I cannot currently explain (and only they know) - but, is permitted to nominate me for Wikipedia's 'death penalty' (again, more or less)? Is this truly how Wikipedia functions?

I'm a fierce advocate for societal fairness/justice and human rights in all walks of life. In the wise, immortal words of MLK Jr., "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." In my opinion, Possibly's behaviour and unjust attacks against me represent a threat to justice for other, new contributors to Wikipedia everywhere - ESPECIALLY if this current, 'kangaroo court' (of sorts) is permitted to continue. A successful deletion of the page in question - given the history of Possibly's behaviour - would lay the groundwork for a dangerous and terribly unfair precedent going forth.

And, before anyone accuses me of histrionics, please let me remind you that, as I mentioned above, I am a gay man. I know what discriminatory behaviour looks and feels like. This isn't foreign to me. I know it when I see it or when I experience it. Respectfully, please do not tell me otherwise or even suggest it.

Regardless of the outcome here, I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia (not only through editing, but financially), but I will also pursue this particular, egregious case in question to the figurative 'ends of the earth'. I will not stop and I will not tire until I obtain a fair, reasonable conclusion - even if this means going to the very top of the Wikipedia 'food chain'. You have witnessed my dedication, thoroughness and refusal to quit. Let it be known that this is the 'tip of the iceberg' insofar as my determination.

This isn't directed at you, Netherzone. You've demonstrated a great deal of fairness and diplomacy (as I've remarked previously). Nor, is this a threat - lest someone accuses me of such behaviour. A threat would involve an "if" - as in, "if" you don't deem the page notable, I will do "this". This is NOT what I'm saying - not in the least. To the contrary, I intend on seeing this through, regardless of the outcome. This has gone way, way too far, the unfairness and animus (demonstrated by Possibly) is beyond acceptable and it will be pursued... without fear or favour.

This is not personal, though Possibly has attempted to make it so. This is much more about principle and fairness at this juncture - something upon which we can, surely, all agree is of utmost importance.

Respectfully, Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)) P.S. - If anyone cares to reach out to me directly or privately, you are welcome to email me @ ryan.girard1978@gmail.com ... I realize it's likely discouraged to include one's email, but this doesn't worry me in the least.[reply]

This is another personal attack, you have been warned once already about not doing this and this [11]] is also unacceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong... Quite the opposite. These are absolutely NOT personal attacks. In fact, these as in defense of personal attacks put forth by Possibly (against me). You may disagree, but these attacks towards me are unjustified / unwarranted and they need to be aired and followed up on. I won't be muzzled or censored, my friend. I've done nothing wrong. And, while you can threaten me ('blocked from editing', as you've done) and you can attempt to justify Possibly's behaviour, this does NOT help advance your case. In fact, it looks a wee bit desperate. You've been fair and helpful throughout, but please don't tarnish your reputation by taking sides here. Please remain impartial. This is important! I hope, at the very least, that you've encouraged Possibly to refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Respectfully, have you? Impartiality and consistency are still alive and well, are they not? Please, once again, I implore you to be fair. Kindly, Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Ryancoke2020: It is not considered best practices to post huge walls of text WP:WALLOFTEXT in an AfD. More importantly, it is inappropriate to accuse an editor (Possibly) of contempt, malfeasance, bias, pettiness, animus, harassment, bullying, gaslighting, vandalism, vindictiveness, cruelty, “pulling rank”, “offering up a death penalty”, injustice, and unfairness; and another editor (Theroadislong) with muzzling, censorship and threatening you, as you have done above. If you have a problem with another editor there are appropriate venues for those discussions, and this is not one of them. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone... Thank you!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I believe I've made a good faith attempt at demonstrating the personal attacks and bias against me by the nominator, though I will, at this time, establish reasons for which I believe this page is, indeed, notable.

1- The Great Realisation - the spoken word poem, written, produced and performed by Roberts - has, since its release in April (2020), garnered 60+ million views across the most prominent social media online platforms. This isn't a silly viral video of someone walking into the side of a building because they were too busy texting. No, in fact, it's a noteworthy, spoken word poem that truly inspired millions of people from across the globe. If you think about it, how many poems - of any kind - go viral? I think it's a mistake to downplay its significance as some have done.

I can provide additional links. C'mon! - Let's strive to be on the level!

The source says "has been viewed tens of millions of times" NOT 60. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong...

Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

2- Following the release of 'The Great Realisation', it was translated into 20 languages (including Arabic, Hebrew, German, Spanish, French, Italian and Russian). I've included this information (which can be found in the Washington Post article) as part of the draft/page, but it was removed by one of the editors, stating that it was irrelevant. I would posit, however, how many poems these days are translated into 20 languages?

3- Roberts has garnered newspaper / magazine articles + TV interviews, including The Washington Post (as mentioned above), Evening Standard, The New Zealand Herald, Greenpeace NZ, Conde Nast Traveler, Vogue/Vogue Italia, CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront, Today with Hoda & Jenna (NBC), CNN Philippines, India Today, Republic World, The Tara Sharma Show, Otago Daily Times (NZ), Radio New Zealand (RNZ), The National (UAE), ITV News, Good Morning Britain, etc. Once again, however, many of these references have been removed - deemed irrelevant or unnoteworthy.

4- Roberts' poem was also publicly endorsed by Drew Barrymore, Jake Gyllenhaal, Jennifer Aniston and other celebrities. This may or may not be relevant, but it is additional proof that a poem - yes, a poem - managed to take the world by storm during the initial height of the pandemic.

5- Following these events, HarperCollins (US, Australia, New Zealand) and Egmont Books (UK) purchased the English Language rights to the poem and published it as a children's picture book (including illustrations by the famed artists, Nomoco). HarperCollins is one of the world's largest publishing companies and is one of the Big Five English-language publishing companies, alongside Penguin Random House, Simon & Schuster, Hachette, and Macmillan (as per Wikipedia). Again, I was not permitted to include information from HarperCollins.

6- Roberts has many spoken word poems that have gone viral (albeit, not to the extent of 'The Great Realisation'), but again, this information has been removed from the page. This is where I can't quite square Wikipedia's rules... Logan Paul, a YouTuber, known for mindless, often-times, inflammatory YouTube content has a Wikipedia page that links to YouTube videos. But, the page I've created isn't permitted to link to YouTube content by Roberts - including spoken word poems that have gone viral. I'm not even permitted to list this content under his 'Works'. Same goes for his 'Filmography'. I understand that spoken word poetry may not be as sensational as showing dead bodies in Japan's Suicide Forest (which Logan Paul has done), but it's still noteworthy that Roberts' lesser-known poetry can garner, at times, 100k+ views.

7- Robert isn't only noteworthy for the above. He wrote, produced and performed a poem called, "What Are You Drawing?" for Vogue/Vogue Italia (for London Fashion Week). Vogue is the top fashion magazine in the world (as per Wikipedia). It was the first time in Vogue's history that a poem was included in their publication (in addition to an online video - on Vogue Italia - of Roberts recited the poem). Again, this information was cut from the draft/page because, according to a certain editor, the references (Vogue, Vogue Italia and Conde Nast) weren't acceptable. I believe a portion of this section has been reinstated following its initial removal.

8- 'The Poet Says Be Hopeful' was written and performed in collaboration w/ the Evening Standard. The Evening Standard is the dominant local/regional evening paper for London (UK) and the surrounding area, with coverage of national and international news and City of London finance. This portion of the page ('The Poet Says Be Hopeful') has been cut down to two sentences, but it does remain.

9- 'While You Were Sleeping' also remains as part of the page. It was performed (by Roberts) as part of a 24-hour fundraising event to benefit Doctors Without Borders (Médecins sans frontières), Dubai Cares, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and other organisations supporting COVID-19 front-line workers.

10- 'The Night My Street Started Clapping' is an ode to the UK's National Health Services created in response to an ITV News London initiative which asked a few London-based poets to describe how their city is coping with the coronavirus crisis. ITV News has the second-largest television news audience in the United Kingdom, second only to BBC News. This portion of the page remains.

11- Roberts' spoken word poem, 'The Great Realisation', was recently performed by Ashley Banjo and his dance troupe, Diversity (on Britain's Got Talent). Diversity won the third season of Britain's Got Talent and Ashley Banjo is one of the show's judges. Diversity has performed for the Queen (at Buckingham Palace). For Ashley Banjo and Diversity to perform Roberts' 'The Great Realisation' (on Britain's Got Talent) is noteworthy, but again, I was barred from including this information.

12- Roberts is also one of the producers of the British feature film, 'Hilda' - which premiered at the Raindance Film Festival (London) in 2019. At Raindance, Roberts was nominated for Breakthrough Producer of the year, while the movie itself was an Official Selection of the British Independent Film Awards (BIFA). At the Moscow Film Festival (2020), the film won Best Director (Rishi Pelham) and Best Actress (Megan Purvis).

I could continue, but I think the above information forms a solid argument for why this page is, indeed, notable.

To anyone reviewing 'notability' re: this page, please consider the aforementioned information prior to making your decision. Thank you, in advance, for your just consideration. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]


  • Delete there is not enough here to actual justify notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing administrator 112 of the last 120 edits Johnpacklambert made on January 19th are delete votes in AFD. I don't think they should be consider not-votes. They re-use the same handful of justifications, which I think makes them actual votes, not not-votes. Geo Swan (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After checking the article's references I think I need to suggest nominator go re-read GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - the Washington Post article contributes to notability, and the NZ herald is likely also contributory, but I haven't seen anything else that remotely comes close to contributing to independent coverage. Furthermore, at this point, even if more coverage of this one "viral" event was found, this is exactly the reason that WP:BLP1E exists. It's a weak not-vote from me because it may be that this person is notable, but the user posting wall of text here has done absolutely nothing to help that case, and has been hurting it by presenting literally dozens of unreliable sources/invalid arguments in this discussion. The user fighting for this article does not appear to have read any of the help they have been provided - and I also suspect based on their history that they have a heavy COI with this article - regardless of if they claim they do not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am also not opposed to move to draft/userspace for continued work and/or for if/when the person becomes notable - I think this may very well be a good compromise here that allows the article to be worked on further and more references found. This is not a clear-cut case, and I don't fault the original AFC acceptor for doing so - as they said, it requires in depth analysis, whereas AFC acceptance is based on "won't be speedied and has at least a chance at AFD" - which this article clearly met at the time it was accepted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC) - update now that the article creator and from what I can see the only person who would be interested in it has been blocked, I can only support userspace if someone else comes along to "take over" and wait for more sources, or deletion - I don't think punting to draft space where it'll be G13ed in 6 months is going to be useful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to expand here, since it seems some people think that it's okay to just say "GNG applies" without referencing specific sources which establish GNG. As such, I'll explain in depth why I feel that, while many links to "sources" were provided, and many "accomplishments" listed, the bar of GNG is not met. Starting with the references in the article itself: 2 (Greenpeace) isn't a reliable source and actually appears to be just their blog that any employee can post on. 4 (Evening Standard) seems to be a cross between an interview and a "paid" advert - it includes an "exclusive poem" and a plea for submissions - and doesn't seem fully independent; furthermore I wouldn't be surprised if there was some behind the scenes payment for what is overall a short amount of coverage in general. Note that Evening Standard is yellow on WP:RSP - meaning there's no consensus as to its reliability, and that it should be taken with a grain of salt. 5 (Evening Standard 2) is yet another short piece which is merely a follow up to source 4 (first Evening Standard one) and does not add to notability. 6 (Conde Nast) is the very definition of "not significant coverage" - it is merely a passing mention. 7 (London Fashion Week) is a schedule release/short interview - which is by definition "routine coverage", not independent, and not significant for establishing notability. 8 is a repeat of 4. 9 (ITV) is an interview, and not independent/secondary for establishing notability. 10 (Kirkus) is a short book review which is standard for anything on that site - nowhere near significant. 11 (Raindance) is an interview with someone he worked with - not independent in the slightest - not to mention all he gets is a passing mention in that interview. Finally, 12 is merely a list of awards/names - not significant coverage as required by GNG.
      So, this leaves sources 1 and 3. Source 1 seems like the strongest help to notability - it's an interview, yes, but also includes 5 paragraphs of writing about the person before the interview starts. Source 3 is similar - it's an interview, but also includes some (but less than the WaPo source 1) original writing about him. So we're at one good quality source for notability, and another one that helps but I wouldn't consider it as good as the WaPo source. So let's see if there's anything useful that was posted in the walls of text above: there's a couple book reviews, book listings, and blog posts - but nothing that qualifies as significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This is followed by, quite frankly, useless promotional material - it does not matter what he's done, how many languages his book is translated into, nor who performed his work. This sort of information cries out for not WP:GNG eligibility, but WP:NAUTHOR eligibility.
      So, now looking at NAUTHOR guidelines for notability, it's clear that Mr. Roberts has not "originat[ed] a significant new concept, theory, or technique", nor "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", nor has any of his works "a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". For this reason, he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR and must meet the GNG. Unfortunately, there have only been one to two sources provided that would qualify as being notable via the GNG. Per WP:Multiple sources, a minimum of three "perfect" examples of the GNG requirement are required - and I personally agree with that essay. One to two examples that themselves are "half-interview" is nowhere near that bar of at least three. For this reason, this subject does not meet the GNG at this time. I ended up at weak delete because I believed that there may be more sources out there that would've helped GNG. But after I've looked into it, there don't seem to be. It seems that the user who created this article has been grasping at any straws possible to try and see what sticks - when unfortunately the subject is not notable at this time. Please feel free (anyone) to create a table if it helps - I have spent more time than I should be before bed on this long explanation already, but I hope it helps others see how just having a lot of links does not a GNG-passing subject make. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Berchanhimez said the following to me (see above): "...the user posting wall of text here has done absolutely nothing to help [their] case" ... Then, the user follows up with a massive wall of text. What is going on here? I get admonished for this, but Berchanhimez can flaunt these 'rules' without a peep? Just looking for some consistency, is all! And, what about their personal attacks against me (see above)? Again, not a word! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
        • The difference here is that my "wall of text" is in fact a detailed policy-based rebuttal and explanation. Your walls of text were not based in policy at all, and were not useful to discussion. I furthermore have not made personal attacks against you - you accusing me of doing so with no evidence is itself a personal attack and will get you sanctioned if you continue. You've been warned to stop this sort of behavior and yet you continue. Please read the guidelines and actually respond to my comments as to why this article doesn't meet GNG. You can't just say "it meets GNG" and it be true - otherwise, I'm a fucking pink elephant from Pluto. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Berchanhimez... You'd receive a better response if you didn't mock me, talk down to me, insult me and/or swear in conversing with me. There's no way you should be considered an independent 'referee' here. You need to take a log off the fire, my friend. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]



Berchanhimez... You'd receive a better response if you didn't mock me, talk down to me, insult me and/or swear in conversing with me. There's no way you should be considered an independent 'referee' here. You need to take a log off the fire, my friend. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Collapse bludgeoning and more personal attacks. Blablubbs|talk 22:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Note to closing administrator - Berchanhimez just admitted that the individual in question (Tomos Roberts) may be notable, but because I posted a wall of text, they're a weak not-vote. This is like a juror stating that the defendant is likely innocent, but their tattoos make them feel "icky", so they vote to convict. This is simply an analogy. This shouldn't be about me; it should be about whether the content is notable or not. Berchanhimez has also conveniently ignored all the other relevant achievements by Mr. Roberts, and the associated references (outlined throughout the page itself and enumerated above). Berchanhimez has based their decision on a personal dislike and they've made the mistake of admitting it in their comments (above). Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
    • That is not at all what I said. Do not misrepresent what I said again. I said that while they may be notable, that cannot be determined based on your walls of text which do nothing to help. If they’re notable, provide the sources necessary to prove it instead of continuing to personally attack others. What you refuse to accept is that achievements themselves don’t matter one bit for notability here, so listing them does not do anything except waste time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's precisely what you said! Nice try! I took the time to read what you wrote and I'll be surprised if you don't edit your comment (I'll be watching). You are choosing not to read the evidence above, more precisely #1-12. Please take the time to read this information. I even bolded the numbers so that they were more evident. Additionally, notability can be found if you'd simply take the time to examine the links / references (a dozen of them) on the page in question. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. I make no assertion as to this person's notability or lack of it, but his faith - widely held at the time - in the ability of the pandemic, or rather the response to it, to change society for the better seems, despite Biden's victory, very far off - at least in Britain, especially in England - now. Obviously notability is not temporary, but the bleaker feelings most people have now about the impact of the pandemic should be brought into consideration when considering the wilder claims made for him. For a start, the poem appears to infer that in a notional post-pandemic world people would no longer be ordering things online on the same scale, something which as we all now know has in fact grown considerably since the pandemic started. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree w/ Geo Swan. Nominator should reacquaint self w/ GNG. Pls avoid impenetrable wall of text. (Dixierising (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)) This is this editors first edit on Wikipedia, they have made no other edits to the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I accepted this draft after User:possibly had made a large number of useful edits that had improved it to the point where I felt it might survive an WP:AFD, on closer inspection and taking on board the excellent analysis made by User:Berchanhimez it seems likely that the subject doesn't quite pass WP:GNG and this coupled with, bad faith, combative editing and now sock puppetry, leads me to delete. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:: Per Berchanhimez' analysis. I have also just reverted yet another personal attack and plan on doing the same with any future ones. This hostile nonsense has gone on long enough. Blablubbs|talk 19:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have given this AfD quite a bit of thought. I agree with Berchanhimez' thorough assessment of the sources. The article fails WP:CREATIVE on all four criteria. The original article was the most promotional arts-related article I have ever seen. There is an indication that this is a coordinated effort between the article creator and the poet's manager/PR agent therefore I believe, whether or not UPE took place, the intention of the piece was pure WP:PROMO puff. The essay on WP:NOT and in particular the section on WP:NOTADVERTISING section #5 are relevant. I also agree the poet does not meet GNG per Berchanhimez. From my own observations when trimming some of the promotional content, I saw that all of this artist's works are from the past year, and based on that, it is way WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in a few years. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having given it further thoughts, I feel - along with what is clearly the consensus - that this article should go. Its subject is of extremely limited notability and I don't think an article is at all necessary, and it is all too likely that promotionalism has been going on, against Wikipedia's spirit. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as easily meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in global (UK USA and NZ) reliable sources independent of the subject. I added two of the numerous NZ sources to the article just to give it some more evidence of coverage. If you think it needs more then I am happy to add them, but it does get a bit ludicrous NealeFamily (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments - if GNG is met then criteria such as WP:CREATIVE does not need to be met as notability is established. Creative would only come into play if GNG was not met. NealeFamily (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that there is sockpuppetry in play, I just want to clarify that my keep was solely on the basis of the Wiki policy and not through any relationship with the articles author or the person it is about.NealeFamily (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If anything is notable here, it's the poem, not its author; the majority of the sources used in the article are about that rather than him. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps the poem/book and/or the author will become notable as time goes by, but I do not believe that point has been reached. The Washington Post article is the best, but it is a lead-in to an interview. The Kirkus coverage is a small point in favor of the notability of the children's book, but is not convincing because that publication exists to mass review books, about 10,000 per year. The essay WP:TOOSOON describes my thinking about this topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question and comment I note that there is a general call for deletion, but the problem I have is that we appear to be deleting an article (albeit written in the main part by someone who is not familiar with Wikipedia editing and policy) about someone who from my viewpoint meets GNG. I think Netherzone's comments about the origin of the article are reasonably valid, but I am concerned that the origin is overshadowing and tainting our collective view. I don't disagree with the comments that the notability comes from a single poem by the author, but the fact that poem has been covered globally in the media surely takes it into the notable category surely? Will it be a one off wonder - who knows and in calling for deletion have several have suggested the article may fall into the WP:TOOSOON category because of this. But looking at WP:BLP1E, there seems to grounds to keep articles about people even if they gained notability through a single event depending on the spread and depth of there coverage. Alternatively, if delete is still the preference can I suggest a possible compromise in that there is an article titled COVID-19 pandemic in popular culture which may be a reasonable alternative site for a paragraph about Tomos Roberts and his poem. What are your thoughts? NealeFamily (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll offer my view here - interviews, in my book, don't contribute greatly to notability - and the only sources here which are reliable and significant enough to potentially contribute are both interviews (albeit with a somewhat decent amount of 'foreword'). Personally, the reason I do not consider interviews to be on the same standing as an article is that there is by definition conflict of interest whenever an interview is included - people are known to offer free or "exclusive" interviews in an attempt to get their <whatever> covered more, and likewise, interviews (when agreed to) are an easy way to make a story for news. It takes a lot more work, effort, and standing to be able to write a full article on a subject (person, book, work, anything) - thus contributing more to notability than anything associated with an interview. I agree that BLP1E would likely make this article titled about the author, iff the work was independently notable, but I still don't consider either Mr. Roberts nor the work being covered to be notable. I don't particularly subscribe to "it being a one-hit wonder makes it too soon" - I just feel that two articles that are both based on interviews is not the bar for GNG - it shouldn't be, at least. The point of GNG is to enable us to curate and not be a "compendium of everything". I encourage you to read my in depth analysis of the sources above if you are curious more about my opinions on the sourcing. TLDR: most of it is "routine" and the only non-routine is borderline at best (the two interviews). That being said, I'm happy with the content being merged over to that article barring any reason it shouldn't be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions NealeFamily (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I have included the disability project in this discussion as I am unsure whether or not overcoming severe dyslexia would have a bearing on Roberts notability as a poet and author NealeFamily (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having quickly skimmed through the "walls of text" here, I get the impression that this might be a case of the poem being more notable than the poet. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete but with some reservations. The listed concerns with this article are valid enough. The sourcing of this article is either to the ISS company (lacking independence), to Youtube (lacking reliability) or to articles about the company (lacking coverage of Gravenhorst). With unanimity in this discussion, I will respect that result. With that said, ISS is a very large company by Danish standards, and a quick review of some Danish sources gives coverage of Gravenhorst's strategic decisions [12] and a recap of his career upon his retirement [13]. Reviewing the relevant policy, the nomination and Bearian have proven that the article doesn't demonstrate WP:N and WP:RS standards, but I will note that the result applies to the article, not necessarily the subject. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Gravenhorst

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

WP:RESUME on Wikipedia. Articles are about companies, not him. No notability. FalconK (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tsumura

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

Extremely poorly sourced WP:RESUME-like BLP. He's been involved in a lot of projects but I don't see any claim to notability here. FalconK (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WhiteLabelDating

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

WP:PROMO article with NPOV tag since November 2016, with citations only to press releases, trivial lists, contributed articles, and articles that only mention the site in passing. No evidence at all that this meets WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 00:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rett Smith

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

Promotional article initially created by a blocked UPE which has no significant coverage in reliable sources. FalconK (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan Times

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

Not notable news organization. I cannot find any sources to prove its notability, and again, there's not any references except two external links. Ahmetlii (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ahmetlii (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. — The Earwig talk 00:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A Russo

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

Though this article is WP:BOMBARDed with sources, it looks like nearly every one of them that's reliable (i.e. not an alumni page) is either a routine business announcement or uses him as a source. If he's notable, it's because of a company he represented going down (Lehman Brothers), but notability is not inherited and the lack of discussion of any role he might have played in that points to a probable lack of notability. FalconK (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-11 move to → Draft:Thomas A Russo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — The Earwig talk 00:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Grimes Gallery

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

Nominating this for deletion for two reasons. First and foremost, this article is almost entirely an advertisement written by the subject of the article such that it has significant COI and NPOV problems. Second, even aside from these issues, I am also skeptical that this has been the subject of significant coverage such that it meets the notability requirement. Searches turned up articles about artists that exhibited at the gallery but not significant coverage about the gallery itself. For both reasons, I think this page should be deleted. DocFreeman24 (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that the coverage in currently available sources does not meet notability guidelines at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 04:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bain Ligor

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The only significant thing about her I found is that she has a YouTube channel with 100,000 subscribers, and a video with over 2 Million views. Other than that I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Daiyusha (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator claims that she is a popular singer in the Kalmyk community of 300,000 people. Her YouTube channel seem to indicate she mainly sings in Russian language, and happens to be ethnically Kalmyk. Daiyusha (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Kalmyk nationalities, who is only 300 000 in the world is a great success. Obviously you cannot compare it with Mile ho tum with billions Indians viewers but for Kalmykia is a greatest success. You should consider Relative numbers here in other case it would be discrimination of small nationalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makushima (talk • contribs) 09:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Makushima: Is she a big singer/promoter of a particular type of endangered music? If yes, she deserves an article if she has news article. Just being "a YouTuber" in a 300,000 strong group shouldn't count. And certainly simply belonging to a minority isn't a criteria of notability either. Daiyusha (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider her not as good singer, she is 100% notable figure of Kalmyk people. And Kalmyk nationality can proud of her daughter. She is promoting Mongolian language branch songs (Kalmyk and Buryat) and beauty of those languages. It is unique singer. Does Metallica or Maddona sing in melodic Mongolian (well Kalmyk or Buriyat) languages? No.. they are like any other thousand singers sing in English. They are not unique. There is two news article links in article and one is on Информационный портал Республики Калмыкия which is equal US government portal for American. The thing that she share her singing on youtube is completely irrelevant. People like not because she is youtetuber but because of her voice and unique songs. Being noticeable figure in minority IS a createria to be noticeable.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makushima (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave she is noticeable person of Kalmyk Minority. News article on Kalmyk Republic Portal shows it. You discriminating minorities, by putting them to unequal "noticebility" condition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_descrimination_on_Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makushima (talk • contribs) 12:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Discrimination_of_Minorities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makushima (talk • contribs) 13:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please change classification from Noticeable Singer to Noticeable person of Kalmyk Minority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makushima (talk • contribs) 13:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the two links about discrimination above, the first is a short essay written yesterday by Makushima him/herself that has already been nominated for speedy deletion. The second link is to an attempted new section at the general article about Wikipedia that Makushima wrote yesterday and was immediately reverted. This is a false argument anyway because Wikipedia has a variety of robust articles on the Kalmyk people and their history and culture, which would not be nearly so informative if WP discriminated against them. Also, none of this makes Ms. Ligor notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Makushima: All I'm asking is news articles claiming she's a top singer of a language. Kalmyk sources are also okay. That's it. WE NEED SOURCES. You claiming that she's a noticeable person is not enough. If she's too new to the field, fine, wait for some time, she's a Russian too, some newspaper may cover her. My state in India has 5% of India's population. We have our own reality and singing competitions in our own language not spoken by 95%of the country. Some participants of those are known to the entire state(nearly 60 Million people), doesn't make them wiki-notable until they actually do something, like perform in movies or win a top competition. Daiyusha (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daiyusha:

Does is it required that language must be dying? I think it is enough genocide for Kalmyks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Kalmyks Thanks to God, Kalmyk is not dying language. And I wrote many times, I don't know who said that she is TOP singer / Pop star / Superstar (Rajni) / Stylish star (Allu). SHE IS NOTICEABLE PERSON OF KALMYK PEOPLE. Tthis fact is confirmed by Official news portal of Kalmyk Republic (her success in described in the news). Which is a TOP. There is nothing higher than that for news for Kalmyk nationalities. Which is equal if Official Tamil Nadu Government Portal put article about you, if you won the completions. For Tamil is a top. And Competitions of International. It means other nationality accept her as best. But most important thing that people recognize her talent with subscribing to her channel and view counts. It will be if some Malayalam won whole India completions and received 500 Millions on you tube. As I told you earlier: you should consider relative numbers in this case. Unfortunately in Russia (Kalmykia part of Russia) don't have similar culture as India, where cinema industry has such a big influence on society, so you cannot compare and expect that she will be background singer for Katrina Kaif or Nayanthara (But I would like that it will happens someday ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makushima (talk • contribs) 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources available in any language about this person? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpideronePLEASE READ THE ARTICLE, THERE LINKS TO OFFICIAL PORTAL OF REPUBLIC OF KALMYKIYA. DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE ASKING THIS QUESTION?
  • Spiderone None that I can find. Very talented woman and amazing at what she does but there is nothing by what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. I would love to keep this article as many others I have voted on but the notability requirements are such that we can not unless that criteria is met. It pains me but she doesn't pass the bar of notability. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TsistunagiskaPLEASE READ THE ARTICLE, THERE LINKS TO OFFICIAL PORTAL OF REPUBLIC OF KALMYKIYA. DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE ASKING THIS QUESTION?
That's a massive shame. I hope that some sources do come out from somewhere. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass the notability criteria set forth in WP:N. Can't find anything in the Kalmyk (I hope I wrote that right, sorry if I didn't) or Russian that would be considered reliable. She has an Instagram. She has a Facebook. She has a YouTube channel. She is quite talented and a lot of people love her music. That's all we have for now and it simply isn't enough. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • TsistunagiskaI tired to repeat the same - SHE IS NOTICEABLE PERSON OF KALMYK PEOPLE. The reason that she became noticeable is her music activity. But this is not reason why she mentioned om Wiki.
  • Delete - Let's be charitable with WP:TOOSOON. This is a revealing discussion, as the person who wants to keep the article is essentially begging for sympathy because the musician is hobbled by her obscure location and small ethnic group, while those voting to delete find it unfortunate. Well, I too think she is very talented with great potential, but she simply has not been noticed by any reliable media to generate the coverage that is needed for Wikipedia's crucial notability guidelines. The article's supporter must understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in which people/things must qualify for inclusion. Allow me to suggest that the musician could hire a professional publicist that can get her music into the hands of reliable journalists in bigger communities. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doomsdayer52I tired to repeat the same - SHE IS NOTICEABLE PERSON OF KALMYK PEOPLE. The reason that she became noticeable is her music activity. But this is not reason why she mentioned om Wiki.

We have other options: delete this article and I recreate it as victim of minority discrimination policy of Wikipedia. For example, Aleut singer never will be mentioned on Wiki due this policy. There is 400 Aleuts in the world. They don't have printed newspaper. And there is no article about their singers in USA or Indian newspapers, obviosly. And Even if they would have newspaper, wiki will delete article, because 400 copies newspaper is not significant (even it covers WHOLE NATION). If you do this for Chinese singer the article will remain. This is a pure discrimination.

  • Makushima: As a person of minority status and a woman I understand and share in your frustrations and feelings concerning many policies and guidelines, not just here but in a lot of places. Is it discriminatory? Yes. Is it shameful? Yes. I'd be the first to vote for change and if you can civilly do so within the procedures of this organization then I will support that move 1000%. To question whether I read this article or attempted to search every available avenue for something I could point to as evidence she passes Wikipedia's criteria is both ignorant on your part and assuming bad faith on the part of myself and others who have commented here. I personally find it offensive. This is not Asareel's policy. This is Wikipedia's policy. I agreed to be an editor here and I must follow the policy given to me to follow in regards to AfD's and notability for inclusion. To part from that, without changes to the criteria itself, would be disingenuous to the countless articles that have already been deleted as the result of the current criteria and yet were just as notable in my mind as this beautiful and talented woman. As a side note, please make sure to sign your comments, thanks. --ARoseWolf 15:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tsistunagiska You asked official information - I provided you link from Official Portal Of Kalmykia. You should understand, I am not frustrated, even it probably looks like this.

I am trying to achieve my personal life goal - to create article about this person. And I think I fulfill your conditions and you are still not happy. So I just describing you another way to achieve my goal. I don't want to offend anyone. If I did this, I am sorry. Obviously, being described as victim of discrimination is not so good as noticeable person of Kalmyk nationality but it is allows me to reach my goal. So it is not frustrated expressions. Frustrated expressions will sounds like this: Genghis Khan started his first war because of Mongolian woman and created biggest land empire in history. I consider Klamyk are part of Mongolian nationality, so don't force me repeat it! ;-) It is a joke. I don't want offend anyone. But I will proceed with my activities. I wrote several letters to EU Commission about discrimination of fathers in family courts. So if I fail here I will wrote to them, asking put sanction on Wikipedia for discrimination. Something like this... I am not against Wikipedia - greatest source of information. I am against discrimination policies on Wikipedia. I am not frighting you (obviously). You can ban at any second. But I think I do the right thing (just like in Spike Lee film) ;-)

@Makushima: She sings in Russian mostly, she obviously has Russian subscribers as well, That makes it about 146 Million more people who understand her and are likely to subscribe to her. I've read the comments on her "Kalmyk" songs, She has Russian and Kyrgyz listeners as well. Bain is a talented woman who sings well and can speak multiple languages, she is not discriminated or oppressed, her ancestors were. She's born in Kalmykia, (a state of Russia), and lives in Moscow as per the article you wrote on your own. That gives her an oppurtunity for a very large fanbase. A Russian citizen by birth, who lives in Moscow and sings Russian songs. I'm not sure that gives her any "disadvantage" as a minority in the sense of the article. If she wins a notable contest, or some Russian newspaper in her city decides to cover her growing popularity, she would have sources. All I would suggest is wait. Lack of sources is not discrimination. The biggest YouTuber in India right now, Bhuvan Bam(mainly comedian, but sings as well) had the article nominated for deletion as soon as it was created in 2017, when he already had 7 million subscribers by then. There are other Indian youtubers with nearly 10 Million subscribers who still don't get an article. There was this guy called Technical Guruji - Gaurav Chaudhary, he's essentially a Hindi Marques Brownlee, He was a household name(at least among youngsters) in India by 2015. Article was created and deleted in 2017. Got a mention in Forbes India's 30 under 30, only then he got an article created. Have patience. Daiyusha (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daiyusha: Everything what you wrote is correct, but is out of scope of our discussion. I can even add that there is Kazakh, Buryat, Tatar, Belarus, Ukrainian and other Russian Federation nationalities among her listeners. It doesn't change anything. Alongside that she live in Moscow and sing in Russian and English she beautiful woman, but she didn't won any Beatty contest like Aishwarya Rai. But you understand that it doesn't matter. It is not a reason why people write article about her. Dhanush on Wikipedia is not because he married daughter of Rajni, but because he is good actor. So all facts which you described doesn't change the fact that she NOTICEABLE PERSON OF MINORITY.
@Makushima: Let me put it straight. Where's the proof that she's a popular person among Kalmyks? If you have online proof of that, she can have an article, else you have to wait. Just like how so many big and small youtubers from countries like China, India, US and other populous countries also wait. Actors are a different thing, I'm comparing youtubers to youtubers, every single Indian you mention are actors. Indian youtubers are something only those who understand Indian languages and watch YouTube understand. India's famous for its actors, you know them. Russia is famous for its billionaires and sportspersons, I know them because they appear in various media.

You know Bain(100K subscribers) as a popular YouTuber, but I don't., Me and my friends know Harsh Beniwal(A punjabi with 12M subscribers where punjabis are only 120 Million(and are a minority in India), so nearly one tenth as per your logic) as a popular YouTuber, you don't, and both these youtubers will not get an article unless proof of their popularity exists in written form, either due to them winning an award, contest, or a significant mention in a newspaper. Being born as a Kalmyk is not a sign of Notability, and if you claim so, it would start to look like Reverse discrimination. Articles of my favourite Indian youtubers who are also talented youngsters will not be created unless they get a significant news mention, that's not discrimination, that's just a well defined policy. I would suggest to move our discussion outside this page and into the talk page. Daiyusha (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In a possibly vain attempt to forestall repetition, stating that she is popular over and over again without providing sources isn't going to "save" the article, no matter how much you all-caps shout. To equate the removal of one singer's article with genocide is disgusting. To claim that 100,000 subscribers equals a third of the global Kalmyk population is just ludicrous. There is no way to tell the ethnicity of even one of those subscribers, even assuming that they are all real, individual humans. They could be New Zealanders for all we know.

EggishornBut does it not noticeable person of Kalmyk minority which has 100K New Zealand subscribers? Any other similar examples? Aleut singer which has 100K Tatar supporters? It is ridiculous saying that if her subscribers are not Klamyk than they don't count. And saying they are not human but robots it completely ridiculous. Do you have reliable source to claim they are not humans? Significance of person for nationality doesn't ONLY counted by acceptance of people of this nationality. if Cherokee guy will get 1M indian supporters, dancing in Indian movie, For Cherokee minority it is significant person. Makushima (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a complete lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.

Eggishorn if you don't like Republic Information portal we should delete Trumps page, because there is lot of information taken from government information portals. Can you prove that he was president of USA without government portal. All other sources took this info from there Makushima (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest seeing if the Russian wiki is interested. There's even a Kalmyk wiki that would probably be happy to have an article on this subject. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U:Morbidthoughts Google is not reliable source of information you shouldn't put search resultS here as evidence. There is lot's of information how google manipulate search results and court cases about it. You can google about it ;-) Makushima (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google is a tool, not a source itself. Please provide any other news articles about her that may be missing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently WP:ENT, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:GNG are not met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with regret, does not meet any Wikipedia inclusion guideline and after, lengthy and mostly circular discussion with the creator on my talk page, I am not convinced that any sources showing significant coverage exist. Yes, I am aware that she is from a community which lacks newspapers and news websites but we have to adhere to WP:N and WP:V, which are our core principles and, if we waive those policies here, it will have no good in the long run as we will have no way of verifying whether any of the info in the article is actually true Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spiderone There wasn't any discussion. You just told me go to another site, because we suppress information about minorities according to our discrimination policies.... At leat I understaind it in that way Makushima (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is a Russian.
Spiderone To have Russian citizenship and being Russian by nationality is it different thing. Do you think Stalin was Russian? Makushima (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any Russian newspaper would cover her if she does something big. She's not notable thats it.
Spiderone No, did many americans newspapers cover Best Apache singers? Now they follow the same policy as Wikipedia - suppress information about minorities. Makushima (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no discrimination. If her classmate,say a normal slav, had the exact same qualifications, she too wouldn't get an article. The best suggestion I can give you is that create an article for her on the Russian wikipedia. It is equally valuable but in a different language.

Spiderone If it is equal so why it is not in English? Most Kalmyks who live in Europe uses English as main language and probably they will search in English Wikipedia. Makushima (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't belong here on the English wikipedia at all.

Spiderone Said who? Putin? Trump? Policy? Stereotypes in peoples heads? Makushima (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the article for deletion because she didnt have good sources at all, in any language. I didnt know she belonged to a minority until you brought that up. Also @Spiderone: a bit of research shows she is a Russian too, and lives in Moscow, sings Russian songs on YouTube(her main hobby seems to be writing Russian songs, not a minority language songs) , she won a song contest in her own city of moscow, as part of a team. There is every possibility that a Russian paper would cover her in the future. i dont see her being disadvantaged in any way as far as media exposure is concerned. now it just seems like the author is using the word minority to blackmail us.

Spiderone You just show and see only half of facts. I can say she sings on Klamyk language. By UNESCO this is a Endangered language (check on Wikipedia). If Official Information Portal of Republic is not good source? So we should delete page about Trumps. he doesn't have any source that he president. Makushima (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daiyusha (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Daiyusha. The fact that she is a Kalmyk is not in any way relevant to this deletion discussion. The attempt to draw comparisons with Aleuts is also not in any way pertinent. Kalmyks number some 200k while the Aleuts are fewer than 500. At risk of sounding like a broken record, I repeat, if she is that notable, sources should exist saying such. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)~[reply]
Daiyusha Obviously you delete want to delete this page not because she is Kalmyk, but because she doesn't have enough supporters, likes, articles compare with Indians singers who has billions auditory. And it is not that she is not popular in Kalmyk, she is not popular comparing with Indians who have 1 billion population. So it is pure suppressing minorities. If a nationality has small number of people you suppress information about them. So information about culture most nationalities on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia will be suppressed. Only several top lines consider as human, other are second grade humans by Wiki Policy: information about their culture is not important, as their are not noticeable .....
  • Suggestion - I have been watching this awful discussion and really hope it ends soon. Makushima is trying and failing to guilt-trip all of us by making Ms. Ligor a stand-in for Makushima's grievances about how the ethnic group is covered in the world media. To assuage that person's misery, allow me to suggest that Ms. Ligor be listed in the "List of notable Kalmyks" section at the Kalmyks article if there is news of her winning the contest in Moscow, while she may qualify for an article in the Russian and Kalmyk Wikipedia's depending on their notability criteria. Good luck to Ms. Ligor, she's very good at what she does. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doomsdayer520 Don't need formalities, just call her Princess ;-) 5.173.242.254 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly If I gave up fighting for my point of view we can end up with Mensch und Untermensch. And I think you know how it is ended.... Makushima (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Possibly. Makushima, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING. It's rude to reply to every comment. Also, please indent your posts using colons : :: ::: ::::, and please sign your posts using 4 tildes ~~~~. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Novem_Linguae Why it is rude? This is discussion page not voting page. It is opposite in discussion: ignoring interlocutors is rude. So I am trying to answer to every participant of discussion. Or discussion on wiki and discussion in real world means different thing? So your statement looks little bit not logical for me: we gathered here to talk about Bain, but you shouldn’t speak...

“The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.” I bring only arguments and reasons in my answers. Makushima (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Sorry I inserted my answers into answers of other participants, splitting them. I thought wiki smart enough to understand format it. I didn’t delete or amend comments of others. Makushima (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Makushima: You did amend/change the commemnts of others. You should stop posting on this thread, it is really disruptive. You have alreay made your point ten times. Possibly (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This incident has been reported to ANI [21] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Morbidthoughts Thank you! I hope this will help to clarify situation! Makushima (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Suggestion

Hello, Everyone! People start complaining that I “little bit” 😉 mess up with comments formatting. So I decided to summarize discussion, as it is a “little bit” hard to read it 😉 1) I wanted to make that it would looks like a real discussion, so put my comments after sentences which answered. So, person can easy understand where, as I think, she/he is wrong. 2) I repeat several times the same thing, because different people bring the same arguments, like saying that there is no reliable sources, so I highlighted to them that there is a Official Information Portal of Republic, their statement is little confusing to me… 3) If person says that Bain is Russian that it is also confusing to me. She is citizen of Russian Federation but her nationality is not Russian. It was mentioned on Republic Portal – she is Kalmyk. On her youtube channel too it was mentioned many times. I must highlighted those kind of obvious for me misconceptions to other people. 4) Requests to stop posting my opinion and arguments on this page looks completely not understandable for me. This is a discussion page, not vote page. People DISCUSS here, showing the arguments, that another person opinion is wrong from their point of view. So, when you say stop posting your comments, it is like suppression of democracy, freedom of speech, or what else? 5) I didn’t attack anyone here, like some people wrote. I understand, that if I am saying that there is discrimination policy on Wiki, where you separate people by nation and give them different opportunities, just because their nationality is small, it sounds offensive. People start thinking: “what I am working for discriminating company, no, I am not like Nazi who segregate nations”. But here I just clarifying existing fact, that Wikipedia separate nationality by noticeability policy. As I wrote, information about noticeable people from minorities, who is noticeable only inside minority, will be suppressed by Wikipedia. They will be considered as noticeable only if they accepted to be noticeable in “big” nations. So if you are feel offended than you should change policy. It is not my fault that policy which you use “offends you”. I just highlighted that fact. Without pointing to anyone personally. I understand that it is a corporate policy, not someone’s personal policy. 6) I proposed resolution of this situation, not just saying: we have bad policy – fix it. I understand that there are backgrounds behind this policy but it can be amended if you consider noticeability not by real number but relative comparable numbers for exact minority. You don’t need to bring 300K new servers to store millions minority singers or poets. You need just amend they way how you look at the world. 7) I appreciated advises to move this page to Russian or Kalmyck Wikipedia. This is a reasonable ADDITION. As someone mentioned English and other languages Wikipedia are equal. If it is like this, then it is not clear why should I move it but not copy. I mean why English readers must get less information than Russians? It is not clear for me what are you trying to reach by this? It like in English speaking world we don’t want to know anything about other cultures, we have our own… or something else? 8) I do not blackmail anyone, even I totally agree that it sounds like blackmail, when I say if you delete this page, I will make another page for her as minority discrimination victim on Wiki. I think you understand, that you can delete second page with the same easiness as first one. So it is hard to tell that this is blackmail. It is like threat with paper poster heavy armored SWAT officer. He can tear down your poster at any moment, and the only thing that you can do is to show him another poster. I would call it promise, not blackmail. 9) So let’s finish this discussion and start new one (with proper formatting 😉), when my next article “Discrimination Minorities on Wikipedia” will be nominated for deletion 😉 Makushima (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE This discussion has now blown over to ANI (how I found about it, as the fan has been bludgeoning this AFD) and this RFC should be put to bed. The article subject is a nice singer (thanks for that, never heard of her), but far from WP:GNG. Another example that comes to mind is Lanie Gardner who had that huge viral cover of fleetwood mac, but still it is not enough for us here at wikipedia. We would become a host of fan pages if we accepted less. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify to improve article based on sourcing identified by Phil Bridger. It's unclear whether she's notable, but at the moment it's too soon for an article in mainspace. StarM 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that there's much point to draftification unless someone commits to improving the article. I'm not volunteering to do so and nobody else here other than Makushima seems to have any interest in improving it rather than getting it deleted. If nobody takes it on then it will simply languish for six months in draft space and then be speedily deleted under WP:G13. We should take the decision here and now as to whether the subject has enough notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very true. Draftify is usually my solution for good faith article creators, especially newer editors to have them know their content isn't entirely gone should they want to try and fix issues. If they lose interest, G13 takes care of it. I see it akin to redirects being cheap, but don't have an issue if it's deleted outright. Unfortunately I have no interest in musician articles to want to adopt this one. StarM 14:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - she seems like a very nice artist, but not enough for a stand alone article on WP. Kolma8 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:MUSICBIO. The article has just two sources, in Russian, that a ran through Google web page translator. One appears to announce her tour and the other is a brief article on her winning a local performance prize. Neither one even has enough information to meet inclusion criteria. We've never used counts of social media followers or youtube views/subscribers as criteria for inclusion. Those services are easily manipulated by bot services designed to boost view counts. She may be a promising young performer but as of now she doesn't come close to being notable. In general, if one is having trouble find sources to establish notability than that person doesn't meet criteria for inclusion in WP. In addition the page creating editor, Makushima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has edits relating solely to this subject. This may be a WP:SPA and raises the question of possible WP:COI. Blue Riband► 04:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kolma8 and BlueRiband. It is always suspicious when someone defends an article very much, and only comes to an Afd to prove that the subject of the article is VERY notable. That always suggests COI, and most of the time it is (like now, for example). I have also read Makushima's talk page and the administrators' noticeboard, and I must say, this Afd needs to be closed as quickly as possible, and he/she must be blocked. We don't need users like him/her here. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Looks like the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Outhouse (comedy group)

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

Promotional page for a youtube channel. No apparent claim to notability and the cited sources do not provide any reliable secondary source coverage of this group. FalconK (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The page The Outhouse (comedy group) is not a promotion for a YouTube channel. The YouTube channel is simply where the group originated and the history was told as such. I believe that because the group has been featured several times on CBC Television's one hour long, daily, evening, program; it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. User:LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2021 (NST)
  • I have since updated the page. The Outhouse has won a MusicNL award along with Rum Ragged for Music Video of the Year for the video "Ladies Man". The video was directed by member Michael Lynch and featured Justin Hawco and Michael Lynch as actors. This has been verified by Music NL on their website. The Music NL awards are the most prestigious awards in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. User:LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (NST)
Every award that exists is not an automatic free pass over our notability standards. We don't care about any award that you have to reference to the award's own self-published website about itself — in order to be an award that makes its winners notable for winning it, it has to be an award that gets broad journalistic coverage in the media, such as a Juno or a Canadian Screen Award. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better (also, I'd be fine with sandboxing it in draft or userspace if the creator ::wants more time to work on it.) Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced much better than this — notability is not a question of what the article says they did, it's a question of how well the article is or isn't referenced to reliable source media coverage about the things they did, and there isn't remotely close to enough real media coverage being shown. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How much media coverage is required? The group has been covered in several more articles by CBC. Or is it meant that a cult provincial following and a provincial news coverage is not enough? Is a national following and national coverage required? User:LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article only features one source from the CBC, and it isn't a journalist-written news article about them, but promo text wrapped around a YouTube video of them performing. That's not what we're talking about. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page should not be deleted because this group has:
  • Been featured several times on CBC Television's "Here and Now" evening news, performing skits.
  • Has won multiple awards including a provincial music award for best music video of the year in 2019.
  • Launched multiple provincial and nation wide comedy tours including, Taste of Home Comedy Tour, The Best Kind Comedy Tour, and the Getting to Know Me Comedy Tours. On those comedy tours the group sold out dozens of shows and set a record at the Holy Heart Theatre for fastest sold out show.
  • Been the subject of several news articles by VOCM, The Overcast, The Telegram, and CBC; all credible news sources.
  • Gathered a significant social media following.
User:LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being featured in the media as performers of skits is not a notability claim. We're looking for journalist-written third party news articles about them, not just video clips of them doing what they do.
As I already explained to you above, we do not' extend an automatic notability freebie to just every winner of just every award that exists. We care only about top-level national awards like the Juno Awards or the Canadian Screen Awards that get media coverage — if an award gets so little media coverage that you have to source their winning of the award to the award's own self-published website about itself in lieu of a journalist-written news article about their winning of the award, then it is not a notability-making award.
The existence of provincial and nationwide comedy tours is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts them from having to clear WP:GNG on their sourceability.
I've already explained the problem with the CBC article in point #1 above. The VOCM cite has the same problem: it is not a substantive news article about them, but just a publicity link to a video by them. And as for the Telegram, that is also not an article about The Outhouse, it's an article about one member of the group which happens to glancingly mention The Outhouse. That's not the same thing.
Having a "social media following" is no part of our notability criteria for any human career. It doesn't matter how many followers a person or group does or doesn't have on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube or any other social networking platform — the notability test hinges on how much reliable source coverage they do or don't have in real media, and you have not shown enough of that to get them over the bar.
We're not looking for just any web page you can find that offers verification that they exist; we're looking for sources that demonstrate the significance of their work by independently analyzing it. And you haven't shown any sources which do that, at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale presented above. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 23:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand all that you have stated above and that the group does not get notability a "freebie" for certain parameters. I could easily, without disagreement, accept that the group is not notable and secede to deletion if only one source was cited or only one attempt in mentioning something remotely notable was made. However, what I do not understand is how all of the points that have been presented do not count for something.
Say for example what I mean is, if a musician wins a Juno, thats one point of notability. If a musician has an album certified platinum, thats another point of notability. So how does all of the points presented above not count for at the very least, one point of notability? I know obviously that notability is not measured in points, it was just an example. User:LilJohnnyWimple (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that notability isn't measured in "points". Either a person has accomplished something that objectively passes the notability criteria on its face or they haven't — and if they haven't, you can't take multiple below-the-bar statements and add them up into a "notability point". Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the article is referenced mainly to primary sources, and even the few media hits aren't coverage about the group accomplishing anything but simply video clips of the group performing, what sources are actually getting it over WP:GNG? Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 06:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPBWI

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

Invision Community is a notable web forum software product. However, this third-party tool does not appear notable. The article has been unreferenced for years, and a Google search does not reveal independent coverage. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Stanford University centers and institutes#Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. — The Earwig talk 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Center for International Security and Cooperation

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

Its parent organization, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, doesn't have a page (it redirects to Stanford University centers and institutes#Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies), so it's highly unlikely this center is notable. It should be likewise redirected. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Stanford University centers and institutes#Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. — The Earwig talk 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Health Policy, Primary Care and Outcomes Research

Center for Health Policy, Primary Care and Outcomes Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Its parent organization, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, doesn't have a page (it redirects to Stanford University centers and institutes#Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies), so it's highly unlikely this center is notable. It should be likewise redirected. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2004–05 VB Series. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2004–05

West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2004–05 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is only here due to the fact that the West Indies was a third team in the 2004–05 Tri-Series with Pakistan. The only matches outside of the Tri-Series being List A matches which wouldn't be notable enough for it's own article. HawkAussie (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was an official West Indies tour, even though only one-day matches (ODIs and List A) were played and the team was not successful. We have articles on all the other official tours and there is merit, in an encyclopedia, in completeness. It's never likely to be a big or important article, but I think it does no harm to retain it. Had the team been more successful, I suspect we wouldn't be discussing it. Johnlp (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HawkAussie: I don't think this is the same thing. There's a navigational box containing all of West Indies' overseas tours that is appended to every WI tour article, and there are no redlinks or redirects in that currently; so this would create one. There is obviously already an article for the English cricket team in Australia in 2017–18 and its deeds before the three-way T20I tournament, and there are articles for all other official tours. I don't see the benefit of culling this one, either in terms of navigation or encyclopedic completeness. Johnlp (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnlp: You could easily remove that link from the navbox if this is deleted as it's not on the International cricket in 2004–05 page which you would think would be on there if it was linked. In the navigational box for that period, their is no mention of the West Indies tour of Australia. HawkAussie (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HawkAussie: I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia for readers to use and rely on, not to dismantle one. Johnlp (talk) 01:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnlp: We are just we don't need these type of pages where the only new thing is the warm-up matches which could easily merge into the main article. HawkAussie (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are articles on touring sides for each cricket season. I don't have access to news archives but there would almost certainly be coverage of the West Indies' tour of Australia at that time in national newspapers (there always is), so the claim of non-notability is simply not true. Another option which would be a valid alternative to deletion would be a merge or redirect to 2004–2005 Australian cricket season but that article currently doesn't exist. So as not to undo the good work of cricket editors here I see why this article can't be kept pending that being created. Again, another instance where deletion is a lazy option. If people want to redirect to the VB series at the time to avoid deletion I don't mind but that isn't a great outcome either (but it at least avoids deletion). Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2004–05 VB Series where all of the international matches took place. I really don't see this as controversial - this was not a tour in the traditional sense, but a tri-series. The Wisden article contains a little more information, but even then we're scrapping the barrel to get anything more on this. And the VB article desperately needs some decent prose anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to 2004–05 VB Series. Nothing to see here. This trip was organised around the VB Series and there's little of note outside that. Do we really need a sentence to confirm that routine warm-up matches were played? This does not warrant a standalone article. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justicialist Front

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

Completely minor parties or alliances, only active in 1 province in 1 election, no really notable, most are irrelevant and only participated in elections as part of a bigger alliance. Most of them are not active any more. Yilku1 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Front of Jujuy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Name of the alliance of the Radical Civic Union in the province in 2003, 2005 and 2007
Alliance New Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Name of the alliance of the Civic Front of Córdoba in the province in 2003 and 2005
Committee for the Reconstruction of Revolutionary Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spliter group of a minor party, not even a party
Democratic Liberal Party of Córdoba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Minor party, always part of Union for Córdoba. Only participated in 2001 and 2003
Federal North of Jujuy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Only got 2% in 2003 as part of an alliance
Front of the Popular Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Only in 2003
Independent Citizens of Tucumán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Only 1% in 2005 and as part of an alliance with Republican Proposal in 2009 with 9%
Movement for a New Country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Always part of Front for the Renewal of Concordia
New Space of Entre Ríos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Name of the alliance of the Civic Coalition ARI in the province in 2003 and 2005
Party of the Hope of the Province of Buenos Aires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't even think this party existed at all. The only party with a similar name participated only in Buenos Aires city in 2005 with 0.5%
Provincial Union of Entre Ríos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Irrelevant and minor party
Revolutionary Labour Bloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parliamentary group in the senate, not even a party
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. --MewMeowth (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. CentreLeftRight ✉ 22:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2001–02 1. FC Kaiserslautern season

2001–02 1. FC Kaiserslautern season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced list of statistics; fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nathan2055talk - contribs 02:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1999–2000 1. FC Kaiserslautern season

1999–2000 1. FC Kaiserslautern season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced list of statistics; fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nathan2055talk - contribs 02:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rice

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

Not independently notable. The award nomination are in a narrow field and fan-voted. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 06:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Hunley

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

Not independently notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Guess Who. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Sharp

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Despite the subject being a part of two notable bands, there is nothing written about the subject that cannot be addressed in one of t he two band articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one review is not going to make anyone notable, GNG is built around multiple sources. Plus, if someone is part of a band even two reviews are not going to be enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect to The Guess Who. Members of bands are not automatically entitled to have their own standalone BLPs as separate topics from the band just because they exist — and that's especially the case when the band member has nothing whatsoever to do with what made the band notable in the first place, but is associated only with the non-recording boomer-nostalgia-tour phase of the band's life span. To qualify for his own article independently of the band, he would have to be the subject of a hell of a lot more reliable sourcing than this is even attempting to show. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Guess Who. Nothing suggests that he is notable outside his band. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Guess Who. Sharp has appeared on one album by the "modern" version of the band, a barely-noticed release in 2018 ([26]), but he is only ever covered as a member of their not-so-notable nostalgia phase, and none of his previous band memberships are independently notable either. He can be, and already is, discussed at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Guess Who. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wallace (musician)

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. While he has been in several bands (which may lead some to assume he automatically meets WP:MUSICBIO nothing much is written about the subject that cannot be written about the subject in the bands he was in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G11. XOR'easter (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Shivam Sharma (Computer Engineer)

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

Non-notable person (fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO), founder of two non-notable organizations with no non-trivial coverage found via Google, and the article has a promotional bent. It isn't clear that any of the fellowships or awards mentioned are notable either—they may be routine study programs for students (which he may certainly be proud of, but they don't confer notability). Largoplazo (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_January_19&oldid=1004429450"