Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 20	December 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Head Hunter (2016 film)

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

Non-notable film, does not have significant coverage from independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that this film is good evidence against the idea that reviews and the like are fairly common and easy for the average film to receive. It has more than one notable person starring in the production, yet seems to have gained only one sole review, as the second link was a primary source (I've since moved this to the lead). A search brought up nothing usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This again illustrates the problems with creating these articles on non-notable films, especially with full cast listings. One of the links from the cast list went to an article on a person who died 32 years before the film was released.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlena Beard

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

Obscure Non-notable actress that fails WP:NACTOR with only 6 credits in filmography all being minor roles in Our Gang productions. Fails WP:GNG also as I attempted to do research to find sources on the stub and could not find any reliable or significant sources per WP:Before ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every person who appeared in a commercial film in a named role is notable, that is the level that we would need to extend notability to to show that Beard is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lead acting in any major films making her fail WP:NACTOR ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) GRINCHIDICAE🎄 23:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Gawne

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

Was given a PROD on the basis that she does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:NPOL; contested with This figure has been featured in several, independent news sources. Deleting it is homophobic. And I am happy to report its deletion to the relevant authorities

I have done a WP:BEFORE search and found no evidence of this alleged significant coverage in independent news sources. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Till Kraemer

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

Editor created a page for himself. No evidence of notability. Porn awards do not count towards notability anymore. Dream Focus 21:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant COI editing and available sources fail WP:GNG since porn industry sources do not count towards notability since the deprecation of WP:PORNBIO. Kges1901 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, porn awards do not count, but continuous press coverage in mainstream media since 2001 and major acting parts in television shows do. Dream Focus is already engaged here and there where he already tried to discredit my contributions and my notability. --Till Kraemer (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get any coverage other than someone online or a porn channel talking you to about porn? Which notable shows did you have a significant role in? Something not porn related. Dream Focus 21:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't talk to you anymore. You are clearly not listening. I won't repeat myself over and over again just for you. Pretty much everything is listed in the press coverage link I already posted. And yes, mainstream media like Klub Konkret, Hamburger Morgenpost and Hamburger Abendblatt talk with me about porn, no shit, who would have thought? I'm a porn star. Your "argument" is like saying: "But Jeff Bezos only talks about Amazon, that doesn't count". And regarding the shows I already posted the IMDb link but apparently you are not willing to click it. I'm out of here. I'm done wasting my time with you. Enjoy the rest of the discussion. --Till Kraemer (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo fields of work are often shunned from mainstream outlets, yes, but those facing such adverse conditions should still be treated with respect as opposed to potentially being chastised. But that's just my two cents and perhaps I misinterpreted the tone. sex work is work! — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:PORNBIO both by deprecated and current standards. He never won any awards, never received coverage (being nominated isn't a win and doesn't confer notability) and all the supposed coverage is primary/press releases or interviews. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally no press releases and yea, no shit, these are mostly interviews, what's the problem? Also, since nobody clicks my links apparently, I'm gonna list some examples of coverage here:

Akte 06 (Sat.1), Endstation Pornofilm: Wenn Männer keine Arbeit finden
Akte 06 (Sat.1), Pornostar sucht Partner: Auf der Suche nach der großen Liebe
Bild, Pornopedia: Sexstar Till Kraemer (32) gründet geile Enzyklopädie
Bild, Früher Sex-Drehs, heute Waschzwang: Ein Pornostar geht in Rente
Cosmopolitan, Was ist richtig guter Sex?
Cosmopolitan, Cosmo Sex Booklet
Hamburger Abendblatt, Wie tickt die Porno-Industrie?
DRadio Wissen, Eine Stunde Liebe - Pornoindustrie: Eiweiß und Fake-Orgasmen
Forum der Europäer (Arte), Deutschland: Hochleistungssex
Frau von Heute, Ex-Pornostar Till Kraemer (36) packt aus: Es war eine geile Zeit
Klub Konkret (EinsPlus), Zur Sache, Schätzchen - Oversexed and Underfucked
Jolie, Mein Freund ist ein Pornostar
Men's Health, Feuchte Räume
Petra, Sex-Tipps von Profis
WDR 5 Leonardo, Über die Wirkung von Pornographie

I also have a leading part in four seasons of the TV show Sexy Alm (Sport1, also released on DVD). --Till Kraemer (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop bluedgeoning these AFDs and badgering every voter? You have failed to read WP:RS and specifically Wikipedia:Independent sources. Interviews aren't independent, they aren't coverage of you because it's you talking about yourself and your interests. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 23:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be an autobiography, supported by sources that are primary, unreliable, or that give no depth of coverage. I'm not seeing sources thay would pass the GNG bar. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"That give no depth of coverage"? Did you even click one of those links? Use Google Translate if needed. --Till Kraemer (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Till Kraemer, WP:INTERVIEWs are usually considered as primary sources for the purposes of establishing notability. What GNG calls for is multiple sources which tick all of the necessary boxes: reliable, independent, secondary, and depth of coverage. Sources which tick some, but not all, don't cut it. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 23:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails PORNBIO. Non-notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Pornbio was a horrid criteria that served to create inordinately high numbers of articles in Wikipedia connected with porn. It was deprecated. What is needed now is passing the slightly more stringent rules of GNG. The weight of inertia however has kept on Wikipedia a lot of unjustified articles related to people involved in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional biography, no actual notability established despite the citation spam above. Zaathras (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we must presever Wikipedia's ban on creating articles on yourself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will attempt to help build consensus, as this discussion caught my eye due to the repetitive arguments supplied by Mr. Kraemer. I agree with the "delete" voters above on the lack of independent and reliable coverage. Kraemer certainly appears in a lot of online media but it is largely self-promotional and unreliable, and no longer eligible for notability after the recent rejection of the WP:PORNBIO standards. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Geovane

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any evidence of notability. Unless I'm missing something, this does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. For NFOOTBALL, I have checked World Football, kooora, Soccerway, Football Critic, Playmaker Stats and Football Database. Spiderone 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not find much coverages other than transfrmarkt, soccerpunter and all, no significant coverage so fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 21:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harris, Arizona

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

User continues to put lies Wikipedia. A simple look at the map indicates that "Harris is a populated place" is false. It first appeared on the 1948 topo as a siding of a railroad spur, just as it appears as "Harris Siding" on the 1969 topo and [1] calls it a siding. I got zero results on newspapers.com. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nom, nothing but another named railroad passing siding. MB 06:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable railroad siding. –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, just a siding. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barnes calls it a siding. Searching GBooks and newspapers.com is tricky because Harris is a last name, but I found nothing indicating that there was a community at this location. Cxbrx (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Anawalt

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

As mentioned previously, article was created by WANAWALT. This may be William Anawalt, Ms. Anawalt's husband, and also the creator of the page for Francis Cunningham, Ms. Anawalt's father. This may be an attempt to artificially raise Ms. Anawalt's profile and internet presence and is likely in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines.

Beyond the article's questionable creation, Ms. Anawalt does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article is basically describing how she is a professor who created many programs at USC, but there is no additional information that supports how those programs or her teachings were notable, distinguished, uniquely successful, or accomplished in any way. It does not appear Ms. Anawalt pioneered a unique method that broke ground in her field, was praised by fellow academics or journalists for her work, or that there is a stable of notable alumni who praise her or attribute their success to her teachings. It appears that Ms. Anawalt is a college professor and that alone does not merit its own page.

The article also lacks citation with multiple paragraphs not being attributed to any sources. There is nothing to verify sentences like "For the next four years, Anawalt reviewed dance in mini-malls, church basements, gymnasiums and on the Los Angeles streets, giving dancers and performances in these unconventional venues as much attention as those in the city's established concert halls and bastions of official culture." Beyond the lack of citation, the sentence is basically saying that Ms. Anawalt wrote about dance for a newspaper (it is unclear if she was on the paper's staff), which alone does not merit its own Wikipedia page. Plenty of arts and dance journalists do not have their own Wikipedia pages, how is Ms. Anawalt any different?

For this sentence, "In 2009, Anawalt resigned from the Pasadena, Calif. Arts and Culture Commission after the commission refused to display two pieces of public art," this is just the NYT describing how she quit a job. There is also no citation for this sentence, "She is the recipient of a Citizen Ambassador award from the City of Los Angeles and a Literary Arts Award from the Pasadena Arts Council." There has to be something about her own journalistic career that is uniquely accomplished or notable that can be verified from additional sources to merit page creation.

The only item included on Ms. Anawalt's page that may appear to merit page creation is her writing of the Joffrey book which was adapted into a PBS documentary. However, writing a book alone does not serve as merit for its own page, the book itself needs to have met the notability requirement, which the Joffrey book does not appear to beyond initial reviews published several decades ago. Deeper examination of the article shows that it does not meet Wikipedia's notability factors. Another way of saying this is that if this page never existed for Ms. Anawalt, would anyone have noticed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O811RT1 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per your description, the subject seems to meet the notability of WP:AUTHOR #3. And, just so you are aware, it isn't a page, it's an article. Wikipedia users have pages. Subjects have articles. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This statement of yours is false: "However, writing a book alone does not serve as merit for its own page, the book itself needs to have met the notability requirement, which the Joffrey book does not appear to beyond initial reviews published several decades ago." Writing a book that received multiple reviews is grounds for creating an article for the book and possibly the author too. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Authors who publish new books will receive reviews, but the authors and the books themselves often fade into obscurity, often due to lack of notability. Has there been substantial discussion about the Joffrey film or book since their initial release? Has the book been cited by other dance authors, writers, and arts professionals in their own books and films? The Joffrey Ballet would be notable to have its own Wikipedia page as being the subject of the film, but not necessarily the author. Also, more clarification and citations are needed if the book was "adapted" into a film, or if the book was more background research into creating the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bee1:45b0:dd68:c2b6:a059:c60b (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter how old the reviews are. It matters that she received significant coverage for it. That is the standard on Wikipedia. Please read WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Read the sources linked in the article if you need clarification on the book to film; I and at least some of the others here do not. Last thing: If you are the nominator, please sign in. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to justify an article. The conflict of interest in the creation should fully and permanently cause us to delete the article until someone without a conflict of interest deems this a subject worth creating. The rule against creating articles on your self should equally apply to any family member you knew while they were alive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the way it should work, but it does not work that way with current policy. The COI is not really relevant to determining notability. Possibly (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is if it the creation of said page is to intentionally pay homage or raise the profile of Ms. Anawalt. People who Google her now will come across this page and believe Ms. Anawalt to be a notable figure simply because the page exists. And the existence of said page can help Ms. Anawalt or her relatives in their own personal endeavors, such as a way of encouraging prospective students to enroll in her academic program, or raising Ms. Anawalt's profile for any other professional or personal aim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bee1:45b0:dd68:c2b6:a059:c60b (talk • contribs)

I think this comment is by the nominator, who was not logged in. Similarities include: “Ms. Anawalt,” “page” (rather than “article”), “raising the profile”/”raise the profile.” As there was no vote, I am not accusing of malice/sockpuppetry per se—just pointing out that the person is very green. If this is you, O811RT1, There is nothing inherently wrong with writing an article to pay homage. A good number of articles I began were to pay homage, in a way, to notable people. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, also they do not sign their posts like the nominator. If not, User:2600:1700:bee1:45b0:dd68:c2b6:a059:c60b, would you mind please sharing how on Earth you found this AfD to make your very first post/edit to Wikipedia? Do you have a connection to Sasha Anawalt or to her father Francis Cunningham? Netherzone (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of the article has more than a few mentions that I can turn up in Google scholar and her being the subject of the PBS series would lend notability. The conflict of interest is a bit troubling however... Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easy enough to remove anything promotional/resumelike so that the COI would not be an ongoing problem. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Nominator: Please sign your nom, and you need to notify the creator of the articles you have nominated on their talk page. Netherzone (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 to Nominator: O811RT1, It seems that you do not have a User Page ~~nor a Talk Page~~, and that you have only made about a dozen edits to the encyclopedia. This nom was your fifth edit. It might be a good idea to please read up on how the AfD process/procedure works, the criteria for notability in different fields, and the policy related guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she seems to have written a ~~number of~~ books and ~~they have~~ it has been the subject of multiple reviews in periodicals, thereby meeting WP:NAUTHOR. (Regarding the COI, which does not really impact this discussion, I am getting the feeling that the article subject, the article author and the AfD nominator would have no trouble recognizing eachother at a cocktail party.) Possibly (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose one is a number, but then so is zero. Does she have more than one book? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - David Eppstein, it seems she has only written the one book. Netherzone (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - To state the obvious, yes it's one book. My mistake, corrected above. However that book did receive review and wad the source of a feature-length PBS film. Possibly (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject of the article meets notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The article has been considerably improved and cleaned-up since the nomination by the efforts of DiamondRemley39, Possibly and Curiocurio. Netherzone (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 15:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC) DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pornopedia

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

I fail to see how this is notable, it's never received any significant coverage, just a few passing mentions like "omg did you know only 5% of people watch porn with the sound off?!?!", fails WP:NWEB GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you fail to see how Pornopedia is notable, you might want to check out the "secret" In the media section of the article. Having a column in the notable German men's magazine Coupé for years is not "just a few passing mentions". Pornopedia is also used as source in online articles of big newspapers and Pornopedia is mentioned in pop culture, like this book for example. --Till Kraemer (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read about what significant, independent coverage actually is. Because stuff "they" (being the subject) authored and a 3 sentence blurb isn't it and a work of fiction mentioning it once in passing isn't either. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to count the sentences of Bild's article about Pornopedia again. Spoiler alert: there are more than 3. --Till Kraemer (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP ctrl f bild. It's not a valid source. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the part "editors consider the source usable in some cases" again but apparently, you are not one of those editors. I made all my points. If the article is not notable even though you're the first admin since 2011‎ who is bothered by it, fine. I'm out of here. Surprisingly, arguing on Wikipedia talk pages is not my day-to-day business ;) Cheers and all the best, --Till Kraemer (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sources that publish garbage like this are not reliable for anything, including demonstrating notability. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Apart from making me cringe at this snapshot of the underbelly of the German tabloid market, I believe the demonstrated sourcing does not quite rise to what we expect in terms of coverage. The Bild article is the best item, and another of the type might just lift it over the threshold, but that doesn't seem to exist. The Coupe item is - well, see for yourself. Having been the named source for an ongoing featurette is not nothing, but it's not significant coverage either. The rest is homegrown stuff or passing mentions, which don't factor into such an assessment. Overall, not quite there. (Re Bild/valid source: it's still usable for determining notability, just not for sourcing possibly controversial factual statements) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted) ADD without specific comment: the deletion discussion about the equivalent article on deWP, from back in 2012 (resulted in deletion) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually more Bild articles about Pornopedia, for example this one. They don't show up in Google News but you can find them if you search on Bild.de directly. --Till Kraemer (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources written by the subject are not independent and cannot generally establish notability as it's not coverage. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write a single Bild article, so those sources actually are independent. You can find more press coverage here, mostly from industry magazines like Adult Webmaster Business though. German men's magazines like the print versions of Coupé and Praline covered Pornopedia outside of the column too, so it is independent too since I didn't write those articles. --Till Kraemer (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete Still not quite enough to push it over the top, notability-wise. I believe it's just one of the many "-pedia" clones online that use the Media Wiki software. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by owner of the company, most work done on it by him. No reliable sources give it significant coverage to prove it is notable by Wikipedia standards. He also created an article for himself at Till Kraemer, not sure if any of the German sources are notable, but it was determined that porn awards do not count towards notability. Dream Focus 20:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus is checking in from this discussion where he already tried to discredit my contributions and nobody was talking about porn awards here. --Till Kraemer (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated your article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Till Kraemer. Since these two things are related, it should be mentioned here. And all you have done on commons is upload pictures of female porn stars it seems, and all your edits fit on one page despite it being done for years. You aren't very active editing anywhere, and most of your edits are related to you. Dream Focus 21:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is pretty ropey, I struggle to see how this would get an NWEB pass. The COI concerns, while not a reason to delete, don't speak in its favour. Without better sourcing, which I'm not finding, this is a delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sources with significant coverage. - MrOllie (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing is far from adequate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the bio, a person using the Wikipedia to promote their personal business should be squashed on sight. Zero notability, outside the subject's own penned sources. Zaathras (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. Participation in the discussion following improvements to the article leaves no reasonable possibility that this will be deleted. BD2412 T 01:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slipstream (2005 film)

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

Yet another TV film with no evidence of notability in site. There are no references in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources other than the website for the program and imdb. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Review at Dutch site [[2]] Donaldd23 (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done a major overhaul of the article as far as adding sourcing goes. It's not the most major film, but I found enough to flesh out the article fairly well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has evidence of notability, having been massively improved since it was nominated for deletion. [3] DVD Talk is a reliable source that reviewed it, as did https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-2005-02-16-0502140309-story.html Dream Focus 09:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears notable but not necessarily reputable :P Sadads (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the WP:HEY efforts made and uncovering sources. Quality ≠ Notability... -2pou (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100 Million BC

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

I see blog-like reviews, a board game titled Escape from 100 Million BC, and streaming and retail sites, but no evidence of notability. Not to be confused with One Million B.C., of course. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Review at WP:RS DREAD CENTRAL [[4]] Donaldd23 (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Dread Central a RS? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 00:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing here is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dick (2010 film)

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

I see blog-like reviews and streaming sites in WP:BEFORE, but no evidence of notability. Only source is primary. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Not really familiar with inclusion criteria for movies, but it's really hard to find any kind of coverage of this film. Doesn't look like anyone bothered to take the time to review it. NickCT (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A review at DREAD CENTRAL (A WP:RS) [[5]] Donaldd23 (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a major expansion to the page, adding multiple reviews as well as a production and release section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was a bit surprised at the amount of sourcing I found. Asylum films typically don't get this level of coverage unless they're of Sharknado proportions. There aren't many that reach this middle ground. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved with the use of multiple reliable sources including full reviews so that both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG are passed and therefore deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiifi Coleman

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

Fails NACTOR, references 1 and 3 don't point to anything about him they bring you to the main page of a website. The other 4 references are all IMDb showing minor roles. JW 1961 Talk 19:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JW 1961 Talk 19:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The article about him missing church services seems to be the best of the citations for notability and it's hardly enough to justify the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Paras

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

non notable doctor, sourced to the usual vanity spam sites, no independent coverage (at least no meaningful independent coverage), just paid for PR and self published puffery. The Business Standard piece almost had me fooled until I realized it's sponsored partner content. This should also be salted, see: Draft:Paras (life coach), Dr. Paras Daithankar, Paras Daithankar, Paras (Life Coach), Dr Paras GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:GNG.Barmitzg (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on which sources? Every single source is a paid for black hat SEO site or PR. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even close to passing WP:BASIC Spiderone 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant promotion. Far from Wikipedia nobility threshold.RationalPuff (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Quintão

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

There is no evidence that this footballer passes WP:NFOOTBALL at the moment. See this discussion. The dubious caps have now been removed from the profile as there is no source, other than Transfermarkt, that supports this.

I can find nothing to suggest that he has ever made an appearance for Geylang, Shanghai or HNK Trogir either. Searches under his full name and his nickname 'Asoko' are all drawing blanks. As mentioned in the discussion, he was recently deleted from Italian Wiki for verifiability issues much like the ones I'm raising now.

He also fails WP:GNG. If anyone finds any sources that shows that he passes NFOOTBALL then please let me know and I will withdraw this. Spiderone 18:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and also hasn't played an international match according to reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per GlobalSportsArchive which has the details (including the substitutions made in the match), he was on the bench, but did not get subbed in. Therefore, he has no international caps RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability.--Pmand ^{(talk • Contributions)} 11:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK StarM 17:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ardwood, Virginia

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

Looks to be a neighborhood on the edge of Earlysville. GNIS entry is sourced to an ADC map, which often doesn't bode well. Coverage I can find is passing mentions suggesting or calling it a neighborhood - [6], [7], [8], etc. Advertisement for the neighborhood here, which makes it fairly clear that this is just an outlying neighborhood and WP:GEOLAND isn't met. WP:GNG doesn't seem to be either, as the coverage is either non-independent or passing mentions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google maps makes it looks like there are 12-15 homes in the "community". Really hard to understand how this place would be notable. NickCT (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 17:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Grabish (reporter)

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Being a reporter in and of itself does not provide notability. I cannot find significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a neat reporter, but not clear what notability criteria he meets. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem particularly notable on his own, perhaps could be merged into the CBC article, seems to have played a contributing but minor part in the award the group won. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Oaktree b Spudlace (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for journalists is not measured by the extent to which you can reference the article to sources which have him as the bylined author of media coverage about other things — it's measured by the extent to which you can reference the article to sources which have him as the subject of media coverage written by other people. But nearly all of the sources here are the former, and the very few which were actually written by other people just namecheck his existence without being about him to any non-trivial degree. And the RTDNA awards, while not nothing, aren't highly notable enough to confer an instant WP:ANYBIO pass in the absence of more WP:GNG-passing coverage about Austin Grabish than just his employer's own self-published "tooting our own horn" announcement. So no, this isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indrek Käo

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

Moved to draft once. Known mostly for management of Põlva FC Lootos, a IV liiga Estonian team. Does not meet NFOOTY or GNG, coverage in news is of local matches and photo credits to him. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 17:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was considering nominating this one as well. The photo credits seem to inflate the number of hits that he gets on search engines but he still fails WP:GNG. Being the owner of a football club does not make you inherently notable, especially not the 4th tier of Estonia, where even the first tier is not fully professional. Can also be redirected to Põlva FC Lootos but would ideally want it protected from being created again. Spiderone 17:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muqarrab

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

WP:NOTESSAY. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like some kind of poorly written interpretation of religious doctrine? Whatever it is, it's not appropriate. NickCT (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I attempted to contact the editor (see my talk page), with limited success. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Builder

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

A series in which no game is notable. It is thus doubtful that the series could be notable on its own; it most likely fails WP:GNG/WP:NVG. Our WP:VG/SE search engine has zero hits for the series and most of the games, only a few hits for Pontifex and Bridge Project. Whether these games are notable on their own might be assessed independently. IceWelder [✉] 09:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 09:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was not able to find any coverage of this series, the only coverage I could find was for a game called Bridge Builder Adventure, which is not part of this series. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sakshi Talwar

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

Non-notable film maker, actor, entrepreneur and whatever else is claimed! Fails WP:GNG Palmsandbeaches (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 16:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not achieved notability in any of his activities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first sentence runs on without proper punctuation So I can't see how notability is established and oh boy is it long and would require a re-write with proper sources before I can see notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Eyes Sunglasses

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

this survived an AfD in 2012, but our notability standards are higher now. The "articles" referenced in that AfD are still present in archive form in the article and they're not of the standard that provide significant coverage. Other GHits are limited to retail directory listings. StarM 02:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge/redirect to Oakley, Inc. or Luxottica (each of which once owned Bright Eyes Sunglasses).
From the Wikipedia article: "The company having grown to 155 stores, 1/3 of which company run, eventually came under the control of Oakley, Inc.,[3] which was itself purchased by Luxottica in 2007, transferring ownership of the chain to Luxottica.[3] The takeover resulted in Luxottica becoming "by far the biggest eyewear chain in Australia."[4] In 2008 Luxottica having reduced the business to 47 stores, sold the business back to business partners Ralph Edwards and Geoff Harbert."
Here are sources I found about the subject:
1. Redrup, Yolanda (2013-11-06). "Bras N Things and BrightEyes Sunglasses bought back by previous owners". SmartCompany. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  The article notes:
  
  The second buy-back occurred in October when Ralph Edwards and Geoff Harbert re-purchased the BrightEyes Sunglasses chain from Luxottica, which owns retailers such as OPSM and Sunglass Hut. Edwards and Harbert were originally part of an Australian consortium that purchased Bright Eyes in 2000. Over eight years the pair expanded the business from 80 to 140 franchises, making it Australia’s largest privately owned retail sunglasses network, but in 2007 they sold Bright Eyes to Oakley Inc.
2. Walker, Jacqui (2003-10-23). "Back in the sun". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded in 1985, Bright Eyes Sunglasses grew from one store in Cairns in Queensland into a network of 115 across Australia in just over 10 years. But the founder, Robert Johnstone, sold out in 1996 and the chain started going backwards. Franchisees in locations where there was little pedestrian traffic could not turn a profit, and 40 stores closed in three years. At the end of 1999, there were just 82 franchise outlets left.
3. "Business and franchising advertising feature - Stores' future is so bright". Sunday Mail. 2005-03-13. Retrieved 2020-12-14.
  The article notes: "BRIGHT Eyes Sunglass stores are quickly creating a national footprint with their 116th store about to open in South Australia. The chain has been growing steadily since being purchased by the current franchisors five years ago. In BRW's 2005 special feature on Australian Franchise systems, Bright Eyes Sunglass was voted ninth fastest growing Australian franchise."
Cunard (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment my concern on 1/3 was whether they were substantive and independent vs. amplifying the store's own content. StarM 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bright Eyes Sunglasses participants who have been active in the last year: SL93 (talk · contribs) and Carrite (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I voted keep 8 years ago, citing a couple sources. This remains a pretty marginal call, honest people may differ, but I would argue that it passed sourcing then and that notability is not temporary. Standards for inclusion at WP have not changed all that much in the interim. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please add more references. With that many locations in Australia there should be many sources and stories to reference. Eric Carr (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You would think so, however I could not find a single appropriate article in a ProQuest database search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers. On that alone it appears to fail GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability but should be built out more.--TerrellTrevon (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - prepared to give this one the benefit of the doubt, as per the sources cited above. Deus et lex (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors for America

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG due to a lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. I considered a redirect to Vivek Murthy, but as he's a co-founder we'd have a WP:XY problem. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~COMMENT: fails the SIRS test but can be kept once it is met The Ace in Spades (talk) 12:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)~~ — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I do have trouble finding direct coverage in secondary sources, but the group seems to have received at least passing mention in virtually every news outlet out there (e.g. Miami Herald, Politico, LA Times, WSJ, Houston Chronicle, Bloomberg, CBS, WaPo, NYT). Even if there isn't any direct coverage, the indirect coverage so broad as to meet WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:GNG and WP:NORG require significant coverage. None of these articles provide significant coverage. They are all passing mentions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings: - I do take your point, and partially agree that by a strict interpretation, this probably shouldn't fly. That said, I feel like some number of passing mentions can be summed to equate to a significant coverage, and this group seems to hit that bar. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The subject meets WP:N independent of Vivek Murthy. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like a solid organization, 20,000 members, interesting software, very activist, weighing in on issues that are of a high priority for a substantial part of the U.S. population. I just don't see any downside for retaining it. Activist (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Activist, Well, the downside to retaining it would be that it fails notability criteria, and that none of the details you cited are independently verifiable—even through the sources cited above. But it seems I'm about to be outvoted on this, so perhaps a stubbification is in order. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Bool

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

Non notable actress, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, I did find this however that alone isn't enough, All of her roles thus far all seem to be one-bit roles, Fails NACTOR and GNG, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 15:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not rise to the level of having had multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She appears to have had five bit parts in various things, a one shot appearance in Lost doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage - fails WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tobe Nwigwe

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

Non notable rapper who satisfies no criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. A before search shows he lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG also. Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How did you make this determination? gidonb (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never heard of the subject either, but I see four solid sources in the article https://www.houstonchronicle.com/entertainment/music/article/tobe-nwigwe-breakout-rapper-museum-fine-arts-14514653.php#photo-18419491 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/arts/music/tobe-nwigwe-breonna-taylor.html http://www.mtv.com/news/3157478/tobe-nwigwe-slow-down-interview/ https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/music/rapper-tobe-nwigwe-hopes-viral-song-will-reinvigorate-calls-justice-n1233879 and three quite weak ones https://www.npr.org/2019/08/19/751247794/tobe-nwigwe-tiny-desk-concert https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/awards/9474094/tobe-nwigwe-2020-bet-hip-hop-awards https://www.earnthenecklace.com/tobe-nwigwe-wiki/ I don't even need to do BEFORE. Subject easily meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At least two of the “solid sources” you dropped here all required subscriptions so I couldn’t read any of them, the other ones are weak just as you said. In one of those “weak sources” dated July 2020 it explains how he never intended to go viral but did go viral after doing a song on Taylor and a few other sources shows his presumed notability is centered on this. WP:1EVENT & WP:TOOSOON may apply here as well. Celestina007 (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Requiring a subscription does not disqualify the source in any way whatsoever. That has been the case for years. Four solid sources exist. Meets GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WG's sources. We're close-ish to WP:BLP1E territory, but a feature profile in NYT plus a few other sources is good enough for me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG such as the NYT, Houston Chronicle, NPR, and Billboard, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes the WP:GNG per above sources. gidonb (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sexy J

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

Non notable DJ who satisfies no criterion from WP:MUSICBIO neither does she possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her hence falls to satisfy GNG either. All sources used in the article are extended long announcements and interviews which counts for nothing. I should also add that a few reliable sources do discuss her but this RS are announcements hence are of no value to GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources fail to establish notability Spiderone 16:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DJs are rarely notable because like this one, they are so run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everyone above. Btw, @Celestina007:, if those RS are announcements, then they are not RS. Just to be clear. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostDestroyer100, ummm what I think you mean to say is they aren’t to be considered RS in this very context. Reliable sources every now & again publishes what can be referred to as a mere announcement but it doesn’t invalidate the fact that they are a reliable press. The problem is with the piece and not the source per se. Celestina007 (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G3 by ST47. Chompy Ace 23:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ardneil (Ardnell) Hunter

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

unverifiable. I have some concerns about the edits by the article creator, User:DingoFilter, in general, but this one especially caught my eye.

In the sources given which I could verify, and elsewhere, I can find no trace of Ardnell or Ardneil Hunter.

Bernard Burke, 1879, on page 835[9] discusses some lands from the Barony of Arnele which were granted to Norman Huntar: said lands were afterwards known as "Arnele-Huntar". No mention is made of a person named Ardneil, Ardnell, or even Arnele; nor of someone in the Hunter clan born in 1220.
I have no access to Familysearch, and have no interest in looking at this genealogy site either.
The Scottish Family encyclopedia has 2 pages about the Hunter clan: perhaps someone with access can check whether it discusses this Ardneil at all?
The transactions[10] mention Hunters, but not Ardneil, Ardnell, or anything similar, as far as I can see.
Patterson basically has the same info as Burke[11], and again discusses "lands it (Arneil) is bounded with", and "the lands of Arneil-Hunter", i.e. the name of some piece of land, not a person.

Simply misreading the source and interpreting the name of the lands as the name of a person could perhaps be understood; inventing all kinds of fanciful extras, like a year of birth and death, a battle they fought in, the variation "Ardnell de Huntar", ...

Can some people check whether this is a hoax, or something found in some sources but just not the ones accessible online (both those mentioned in the article, and others)? Fram (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FamilySearch is an official respected LDS website and it clearly shows the family linage and his name is Ardneil Hunter https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/L6QR-77P https://ibb.co/DKZGLDg https://ibb.co/ZMc44CP https://ibb.co/vmNcKxd — Preceding unsigned comment added by DingoFilter (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 225#FamilySearch, FamilySearch is not a reliable site, containing a.o. user-generated family trees. The same has been consistently stated in other discussions of the kind, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 229#prabook/geni.com/Familysearch. At best, it is based on birth and death certificates. In cases were even this isn't available (like here), even more reason to avoid it. Fram (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All your screenshots prove is that indeed, anyone can add information to familysearch, no matter where they have gotten it from. Not usable at all; even if this article turns out to be verifiable and is kept (doubtful at the moment), familysearch should be removed from it. Fram (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, FamilySearch is a large website that includes a range of information and cannot be dismissed with a broad brush (e.g. it includes primary records, which theoretically could be cited as WP:RS, but only as consistent with WP"PRIMARY, and also published books but as with Google Books, we cite the actual books). However, what is being cited here is FamilySearch Tree, a crowdsource, uncurrated genealogy database. As Fram says, anyone can add anything to this, and the same genealogical nonsense gets added back almost as quickly as it can be corrected. The only sources given for this entry are 1) a personal family tree posted on Ancestry, which is worthless, and 2) a personal submission to the precursor of FamilySearch Tree, which is worthless. This is of absolutely zero value to Wikipedia and should be immediately removed anywhere on Wikipedia it is cited. Agricolae (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FamilySearch is garbage as a source, especially when there are no documents to back up the claims. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning hoax or just tendentious genealogy. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while I don't have access to the Collins reference either, I seriously doubt he has sufficient information to merit this page - notability usually requires multiple sources giving significant coverage. It is worse here, though, as the supposed individual, Ardnele Huntar, is actually a place name and not a person at all, but someone got it confused and put it in there genealogical database, then uploaded it into the internet genealogical echo chamber. Wikipedia shouldn't be touching this material with a 10-foot pole. I would further suggest that the pages made for the father, grandfather and great-grandfather should also be removed, as they all appear to be based on a combination of sloppy 19th century antiquarianism, passing reference of people of the same name in rare primary records, and loads of bogus genealogy from online genealogical sites. (Example - I just removed the claim that the granddaughter married a niece of William the Conqueror, which is a misreading of Burke's statement, when describing Norman Venator, that King David of Scotland married the niece of William.) They should all go, but particularly this one. Agricolae (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agricolae, I'll have the Collins source in about an hour--will scan at least some pages relevant to this clan so we can answer the question for the other articles created by DingoFilter. It looks like a great many of them have notability concerns. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete as bad genealogy bordering on a hoax. Just checked the Collins source and the two pages don't mention someone even close to this name or a fifth chief. The closest I find is "Aylmer le Hunter of the county Ayr signed the Ragman Roll in 1296 as one of the nobles of Scotland submitting to Edward I of England". But even if the name were right, this guy is dead by then. All of the creator's other articles should be scrutinized. I will chime in with info from the Collins source for those as well. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collins seems to be taking this Aylmer claim from Burke, who says something similar, and Burke is of highly dubious reliability when discussing the 13th century (and before). Setting aside all of the other issues, such a passing mention doesn't make someone notable. Oddly, DingoFilter placed a banner on the Talk page saying: "Out of Copyright Content - All content dates from the 13th to 19th century so well out of copyright and now public domain." This would be bad practice even were it true, but given the cites to Collins and FamilySearch, it is patently false. Clearly this material on this page and much on earlier generations primarily derives from FamilySearch Tree - in other words, is entirely worthless in establishing notability. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Word. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging All British peerages have an article on the title. This might be extended to Scottish clan chiefs. The dates quoted in this article look like estimates. The ultimate source may well be an orally-transmitted genealogy. This person does not merit an article, as there is far too little known about him, but plain deletion is also unsatisfactory. I am thus suggesting that Clan Hunter have a list of early chiefs added to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, I think we're more concerned that he isn't real--that someone misread the name of a place as the name of a person in an old book and uploaded it to a social family tree, and that person or possibly someone else is trying to fabricate a biography of someone for whom there is no record. Should we merge something that in the verification process is revealed to be an out and out lie? That is what the Collier reference is. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we can't readily figure out whether it's a hoax or not, that should be a strong indication we ought to delete. NickCT (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olena Uutai

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

This musician is only notable for one event (Britain's Got Talent participation). Additionally, coverage in sources seems trivial and is mostly covered by tabloids such as The Sun. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Simpsons Movie did more to show her culture to the world than she could/will. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some opinion to keep, but neither of these provide any sources which would suggest this season article passes any guideline. Fenix down (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 CA Oradea season

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

Playing three levels below the fully professional level so not within the scope of WP:NSEASONS. Fails WP:GNG more importantly (not surprising considering their average attendance is 150 people). Spiderone 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - club with rich history, if at one moment the club was in a bad situation doesn't mean that the seasons history must be removed or not created at all. This proposal is just a superficial one. Rhinen (talk) 8:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please show sources that provide significant coverage of this season to justify a separate article for it Spiderone 09:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NSEASONS, there are couple others of these articles. Rhinen I am sorry I can see you put a lot of work into them. But you really should checkout Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues As that only has the top league in Romania as fully professional. There is a way to honour it's history with adding the key points Club Atletic Oradea and making sure that's sourced. Most of the main club article is not sourced and that really needs sorting out if you're able to do that. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While not the biggest team, GSP (arguably the biggest sports newspaper from Romania) called this team "legendary" (see here: https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/nationala/campioana-tarilor-vecine-povestea-legendarei-ca-oradea-singura-echipa-care-a-cistigat-titlul-si-in-romania-si-in-ungaria-394106.html) I'm not a fan, but apparently this team has won the championship in 2 different countries. I think all of this proves the club's notability. And as a side note, I think Wikipedia should aspire to document as much as possible. I said it before: regarding football stuff, Wikipedia is my place to go. Dante4786 (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should try to document as much notable stuff as possible. We don't usually document amateur football in this level of detail because the coverage is trivial. Have you got at least three reliable sources covering the 2018–19 season in detail? At the moment, this is a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK and should either be deleted or redirected to CA Oradea as per what it clearly states at WP:NSEASONS. Spiderone 21:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:NSEASONS as it's needs independent resources to be notable. Also the reference that Dante4786 put out as in 2013 when they were still in the top flight so that doesn't really help. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Please be more informed when making deletion requests. While the reference is indeed from 2013, the club wasn't in top flight back then. Actually, it was in "no-flight". The club was dissolved in the '60s. However, they were still considered a "legendary" club, even 60 years later. So how can a club be less notable when it's actually active? It makes no sense. Dante4786 (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It still stands that fails both GNG and SEASONS. HawkAussie (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that the club itself isn't notable. We are simply stating that the 2018-19 season is not notable enough for a stand-alone article as it contains nothing that couldn't be summarised in a sentence in the main article, to be honest. Spiderone 21:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PrintReleaf

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

Fails WP:NORG - all coverage is promotional content, either rehashed press releases or explicitly promotional content (one of the five apparently independent sources begins "Press Release"). No significant coverage, no reliable, independent secondary sources. PROD removed. ninety:one 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ninety:one 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for taking time to look this over and consider this article. I'll defer to you guys as I'm really a newbie here and learning the ropes. I've searched high and low for references beyond those cited and coming up short. An interesting situation is that the mainstream media under covers climate change (at heart what PrintReleaf is addressing) - (see “Why are the US new media so bad at covering climate change?” The Guardian, March 22, 2019; subtitle is: “The US news media devote startlingly little time to climate change - how can newsrooms cover it in ways that will finally resonate with their audiences?”) Link to article: www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/22/why-is-the-us-news-media-so-bad-at-covering-climate-change.

I launched into this article thinking, and still thinking this is notable company by the sheer impact of their work. But from what I read this alone doesn't meet the criteria. Just to note... PrintReleaf addresses a massive scale of office paper use, which is on average 10,000 sheets per year per worker - over 2.2 trillion pages a year. The growth in paper use is some 22% a year now. The U.S. uses about 68 million trees a year to generate paper and paper products (Record Nations - "How Much Paper is Used in One Day?” Morgan O’Mara, November 12, 2020).

On the PrintReleaf side at their eight reforestation projects in priority areas (particularly Brazil and Madagascar) to date 2 million plus trees have been planted offsetting 17,138,820,402 letter pages / 85,473 tons of paper. And are doing this in a verifiable, scientific, careful way.

Anyway, thanks for reading through this and again thanks for your good work. At the end of the day, if you see anyway to publish this, that'd be great, but I think I really understand the rationale.

Have a great Holiday! And a fantastic 2021. Cheers! Kansas19 (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely WP:UPE spam; creator blocked for spamming. MER-C 14:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thinly-veiled spam, sourced to the type of PR-based refbombing that is commonplace in such submissions. Sourcing does not establish notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar Pillay

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

There are several issues with this article.

The article has no meaningful, substantive content or nobility to qualify for WP:ANYBIO. Trivial mention in local tabloids is the basis of this article. It is merely a blatant promotion and misuse of Wikipedia.
WP:HOAX. The article made up of incorrect and misleading information including the wrong attributions. For example, some local records touted as Guinness World Records. However, merely holding Guinness or other records doesn't qualify WP:ANYBIO.
Unreliable sources and whitewashing using unaccreditated qualification. For example, World Records Univerity is a fraudulent organisation. It's a diploma mill operates from Faridabad, India. No such university in London or in the UK. https://www.gov.uk/check-a-university-is-officially-recognised/recognised-bodies.

Also to note, creator of the page been removing deletion and other tags from the page without any discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:RationalPuff is making baseless accusations here. I did not remove any deletion tags or other tags. Check the page history. I only reverted his disruptive edits [[12]] and [[13]].

He maintains that "World Record University" mentioned in the page is not existing. But that's not true. Here's the website https://worldrecordsuniversity.co.uk/

Besides, User:RationalPuff had continued to make disruptive edits on this page including adding speedy deletion tags when admins like User:Espresso Addict and User:Liz had declined the speedy. This is quite disheartening.

There are clear evidence that the content of this page is factual and supported with sources. WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are met here. That has been the reason the two admins declined the Speedy deletion for a record of two times.Papani i t.d. (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not the Guiness Book of Worldrecords. It is time we purge articles on people with just plain silly "world records".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's made a flip book. Delete per nom. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I declined the initial speedy requests on this as not quite meeting the A7/G11 thresholds, and there appears to be some reasonably reliable news coverage of the subject's achievements, I agree that the claims are far from meeting the encyclopedia's notability threshold. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly likely WP:UPE spam; creator blocked for spamming. MER-C 15:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article on someone not shown to meet WP:BASIC Spiderone 00:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing based on early consensus. Missvain (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 FCSB II season

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

Playing two levels below a level that would be covered by WP:NSEASONS and fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 10:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page was created in 2017, and a year later it was tagged unreferenced. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 21:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even a single ref. Empire AS ^Talk! 07:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability there. HawkAussie (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Internationale Junge Orchesterakademie. Please do not nominate articles for WP:MERGE or WP:REDIRECT for deletion. AfD is only to discuss deletion. Missvain (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kultur- und Sozialstiftung Internationale Junge Orchesterakademie

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

Does not warrant its own article. No secondary sources. Summarize and move to a section in Internationale Junge Orchesterakademie. intforce (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. intforce (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. This doesn't require an AfD. —Kusma (t·c) 15:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Houssem Mekhinini

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTBALL; in Tunisia, he has played for a club that has only played in the second and third tiers, neither of which are fully pro. Also the Saudi Second Division is not listed at WP:FPL. Also fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Was nominated for deletion less than an hour after it was created. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. We need to stop Wikipedia being footballpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing in WP:GNG. Empire AS ^Talk! 07:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Mounal

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

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, (from Ticket:2020122110002764). Also he doesn't seem to be notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 08:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NRU. Given references are not significant coverage. noq (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not qualify for WP:NRU, no references to suggest he passes WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our rugby notability guidelines, so we should not have an article on him no matter what he wants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible Story

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

I was unable to find any reliable independent sources for “‘The Bible Story’ Arthur S. Maxwell” on Google or DuckDuckGo. Admittedly it’s hard to filter out hits for the books themselves but I doubt this work is notable enough to warrant an independent article. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has some good images and meets NOTABLE. –Cupper52^Discuss! 11:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found listings for it on Abebooks and Amazon. All give the date as 1953, suggesting this is not something that was kept in print. Furthermore it is from an Adventist press, which means that those from other denominations are likely to treat it with suspicion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cupper52, you didn’t really provide a substantial basis to keep this article. Did you actually find any potential sources? Peterkington, the age, availability, and publisher background have little relevance to notability. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

"10-Volume 'Bible Story' Set Presented To Library". Napa Valley Register. 1959-09-05. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Information from the article:
1. The Bible Story is written by Arthus S. Maxwell and has 10 volumes and has 409 stories.
2. It is viewed as a "children's Bible".
3. Its stories span from Genesis to Revelations.
4. The article calls the book "beautifully illustrated with reproductions of an art collection valued at more than $500,000".
5. The illustrations were made by 14 artists from nine countries.
6. Maxwell started making arrangements for the book over a decade prior to 1959.
7. Maxwell took seven years to complete the writing.
8. The film director Cecil B. DeMille praised the book, writing in a letter to Maxwell, "If you have done nothing else with your life but make the Bible simple for children, you have not lived in vain."
9. Queen Elizabeth II wrote a "fan letter" to Maxwell about the book.
10. Queen Elizabeth II added The Bible Story to the royal library so that Princess Anne and Prince Charles could read it.
11. Ivy Baker Priest, the Treasurer of the United States, wrote a fan letter to Maxwell about the book.
12. Ivy Baker Priest said she was reading the book to her children.
"Bible Story". The Age. 1960-12-17. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23 – via Newspapers.com.
Dalton, Russell W. (2016). Children’s Bibles in America: A Reception History of the Story of Noah’s Ark in US Children’s Bibles. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-567-66015-2. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Land, Gary (2005). The A to Z of the Seventh-Day Adventists. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. pp. 19, 26, 175, 189. ISBN 978-0-8108-6826-7. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Callaway, Mary Chilton (2020). Jeremiah Through the Centuries. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 52–53. ISBN 978-0-631-23151-6. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Hackleman, Douglas (2008). Who Watches? Who Cares? Misadventures in Stewardship (PDF). Morrison, Colorado: Members for Church Accountability, Inc. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-9814520-0-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-08-29. Retrieved 2020-12-23.

Sources with quotes

"10-Volume 'Bible Story' Set Presented To Library". Napa Valley Register. 1959-09-05. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
Information from the article:
1. The Bible Story is written by Arthus S. Maxwell and has 10 volumes and has 409 stories.
2. It is viewed as a "children's Bible".
3. Its stories span from Genesis to Revelations.
4. The article calls the book "beautifully illustrated with reproductions of an art collection valued at more than $500,000".
5. The illustrations were made by 14 artists from nine countries.
6. Maxwell started making arrangements for the book over a decade prior to 1959.
7. Maxwell took seven years to complete the writing.
8. The film director Cecil B. DeMille praised the book, writing, "If you have done nothing else with your life but make the Bible simple for children, you have not lived in vain."
9. Queen Elizabeth II wrote a "fan letter" to Maxwell about the book.
10. Queen Elizabeth II added The Bible Story to the royal library so that Princess Anne and Prince Charles could read it.
11. Ivy Baker Priest, the Treasurer of the United States, wrote a fan letter to Maxwell about the book.
12. Ivy Baker Priest said she was reading the book to her children.
"Bible Story". The Age. 1960-12-17. Archived from the original on 2020-12-23. Retrieved 2020-12-23 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes that The Bible Story is a 10-volume work that has 400 stories from the Bible. The article notes:
Illustrated in color, this is a monumental achievement by the Signs Publishing Co., of Warburton, which has published the first six volumes. It is in process of publishing the other four which at present are produced in U.S.A. The covers are most attractive, and are finished in a shiny process by a special Australian method.
Dalton, Russell W. (2016). Children’s Bibles in America: A Reception History of the Story of Noah’s Ark in US Children’s Bibles. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-567-66015-2. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The book notes on page 21:
"Uncle" Arthur Maxwell's popular ten-volume The Bible Story was well known for having its first volume available in many doctors' and dentists' office waiting rooms in the later part of the twentieth century, complete with mail-in postcards inserted into the books to allow parents to subscribe to all ten volumes. The publicity for the set included endorsements by Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, and Lutheran clergy, and Maxwell makes no indication in his introduction that he is an Adventist or that he is writing specifically for Adventist children. The common embellishments of Noah warning his neighbors, his neighbors mocking Noah in return, and those neighbors crying out to enter the ark once the flood came, all play a significant role in Maxwell's extended retelling of the tale. Maxwell's retelling contains little evidence, however, that he is drawing particularly from Adventist sources other than when he writes, [quote]
Land, Gary (2005). The A to Z of the Seventh-Day Adventists. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. pp. 19, 26, 175, 189. ISBN 978-0-8108-6826-7. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The book notes on page 19 in an entry about Harry Anderson:
he soon began providing illustrations for Maxwell's The Bible Story, a multivolume children's work sold widely on a subscription basis.
The book notes on page 26 regarding subscription books created by denominational publishing houses:
Arthur S. Maxwell's 10-volume The Bible Story (1953-57) was the first to use color illustrations exclusively and drew upon 21 illustrators, among them Harry Anderson, Harry Baerg, Vernon Nye, and Russell Harlan.

The book notes on page 175:
Arthur S. Maxwell's books for children, Bedtime Stories (a series of 48 annual volumes which began publication in the 1924) and The Bible Story (1951-58), and an adult volume, Your Bible and You (1959), later became staples of literature evangelism.
The book notes on page 189:
Between 1951 and 1958 he published The Bible Story, a 10-volume work that, again through subscription sales, sold more than 1.5 million copies.
Callaway, Mary Chilton (2020). Jeremiah Through the Centuries. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 52–53. ISBN 978-0-631-23151-6. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The book notes on pages 52–53:
Jeremiah offers a far different lesson for readers of Arthur S. Maxwell's ten-volume The Bible Story (1955), which includes ten brightly colored illustrations showing Jeremiah in Orientalizing as well as contemporary settings (Figure 13). ... Maxwell's Jeremiah embodies the virtues of obedience and strong character found in his many other books for children and models the benefits of faith ...
Hackleman, Douglas (2008). Who Watches? Who Cares? Misadventures in Stewardship (PDF). Morrison, Colorado: Members for Church Accountability, Inc. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-9814520-0-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-08-29. Retrieved 2020-12-23.
The book notes:

The history involved what “Uncle” Arthur S. Maxwell’s ten-volume Bible Stories had meant to literature evangelists for four decades. Introduced consecutively between 1953 and 1957, the ten volumes often were bundled with Ellen White’s “Conflict of the Ages” series and Bible Readings for the Home, and were “among the best sellers” of all Adventist subscription literature, wrote former General Conference publishing director, Bruce M.Wickwire.
In 1958, volume one of the Bible Stories was “set as a ‘lead book’ in professional waiting rooms.” An inside cover pocket carried “15 postal cards (printed by the millions) advertising the 10-volume . . . set and other subscription volumes.” This sales strategy was so successful, Wickwire wrote, that “over 250,000 of these sample volumes were stationed in” professional waiting rooms in succeeding years.
The Bible Story set sold for $93.25 in 1961, rising with inflation to $299.95 in 1982 and on up to “about $400” in 1991.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Bible Story to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary from the sources:
1. Queen Elizabeth II added The Bible Story to the royal library so that Princess Anne and Prince Charles could read it.
2. The film director Cecil B. DeMille praised the book, writing in a letter to Maxwell, "If you have done nothing else with your life but make the Bible simple for children, you have not lived in vain."
3. The Bible Story has sold more than 1.5 million copies.
4. Russell W. Dalton, an associate professor at Texas Christian University, wrote in the Bloomsbury Publishing book that The Bible Story is "well known for having its first volume available in many doctors' and dentists' office waiting rooms in the later part of the twentieth century".
Cunard (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the lack of proper WP:BEFORE, which for a work like this would necessarily require a visit to a large academic library to look in pedagogical and denominational periodicals for reviews to the work. For a work of such wide circulation there will be such reviews, possibly many of them. But don't expect to find them FUTON. I am resigned that it will be deleted despite this, but if so it is fitting per Acts 7:52-53.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage provided by Cunard which show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view. There are also some impressive claims of significance such as selling 1.5 million copies that indicate that the subject should be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources cited above, I added an article from the Napa Valley Register to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birnam Wood, Pittsylvania County, Virginia

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

Can only really find passing mentions of this one. It appears to be some sort of subdivision or neighborhood. I see no evidence that WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every named place is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 17:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berry Store, Kentucky

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

Appears to have been a singular store. Rennick's index calls it a locale but his Barren County directory doesn't describe it. Topos seem to show a single building at the site. No results for the string Berry Store in Barren County, KY newspapers.com hits. The various mentions I can find fit a store better than a community - [14]. Other hits seem to be for stores in other counties. Not seeing any way WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG is met. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No basis for an article, a negligent mass-creation. Reywas92^Talk 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every isolated country store is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–Turkey proxy conflict

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

WP:OR Shawarsh (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawarsh (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of work gone into this and while there may be a lot more to do in order to create balance (including possibly a name change) for this article, that's what Wikipedia does, no? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really a large scale proxy-conflict at this moment (personally think Saudi-Turkey is a larger one) since both leaders and FMs seem to be on friendly terms, and there was talk of a Iran-Turkey-Pakistan alliance. Also see the Astana conference where both leaders agreed to discuss even though they were supporting opposing sides. Iran does support Armenia, which is hostile to Turkey supported AZ, however, they are generally not as much of a player (the poem is really not as big of a deal as the article states) in the conflict due to south AZ, and always call on AZ's borders to be respected. There is not much (if any at all) Turkish involvement in Yemen or Afghanistan or Iranian involvement in Libya. Turkey is allied to Pakistan and Iran to India however Iran is also friendly with Pakistan. The Syrian conflict belongs on the Syrian civil war page. Angele201002 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If not deleted, I support adding a section for recent developments wherein the Astana peace process, the proposal of the Iranian-Turkish-Pakistani alliance, the non-involvement of Iran in the 2020 NK war, Iranian support for the GNA, deterioration of Turkish relations with Israel and of Iran with India (Khamenei released a statement supporting the Kashmiri people) improvement of Iranian relations with Pakistan are mentioned Angele201002 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On friendly terms? Turkey just claimed Iran's northern lands as its own. Iran supposedly wasn't involved in Karabakh so it could keep its very nationalistic Azeri minority happy. Israeli support for Azerbaijan shows how much Armenia relies on Iran. Iran publicly expressed support for GNA, but just recently the UN criticized Iran for heavy arms supply to Haftar's rebels^[1]. Israel also accused Iran of funding Haftar. Also the recent appointments of new ambassadors to Israel and Saudi Arabia by Turkey show a turning point, especially given the recent tensions between iran and Turkey.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.119.215 (talk) 21:22, December 16, 2020 (UTC)

Added this statement from talk page, I have no opinion on this AfD. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We should lock this page so vandalism doesn’t happen. Way too many people edited this and spammed countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.119.215 (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Might also have some copyright issues. The user who created this article is now blocked for copyright.
Delete Per reasons given by Angele201002. Pure Original Research. content could be added to Iranian Turkish relations.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a lot of WP:SYNTH. Any well-sourced material can be moved to Iran–Turkey relations.VR _talk 19:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP OR. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR Ridax2020 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck Jane

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

Non-notable band and tagged as such for 10 years, fails WP:NBAND. All I can find is a few sources with passing mention, nothing to suggest notability. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their facebook page hasn't been updated since 2018. I doubt they are even still active. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Desert

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

Uncited for over a 11 years. I can't find any sources which discuss this. Currently the article describes this as both an area in the Sinai Desert, and a piece of art, but I can find zero in-depth sourcing about it. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] pretty quickly, but haven't read through them yet. SportingFlyer T·C 17:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of the references supplied by SportingFlyer are BBC News, my search in google books for {"Blue Desert Jean Verame" -wikipedia} found several hits that look good. The subject of the article is notable. Jeepday (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are also many Arabic sources about it (CNN Arabic - BBC Arabic - Alahram - Rose al-Yūsuf), I create the Arabic article, and I will improve the article here. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 04:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seems to me like there is a degree of significant coverage that mey well satisfy gng. However, no real discussion followed and there hasn't been any further contribution since the relist so seems unlikely we will get consensus one way or the other this time. This closure doesn't preclude renomination at a later date. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katia Coppola

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

Contested PROD. Coppola has never played in a match between two teams playing in a league listed at WP:FPL nor has she ever had a senior international cap, failing WP:NFOOTBALL on that basis. See Soccerway. Coppola has not received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG as the only sources providing more than just a passing mention are this and this, both from the same website and insufficient in terms of coverage for GNG. I have checked the article on Italian Wikipedia and none of the references used show significant coverage either. Spiderone 21:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment her Italian page is well-developed and she's played in over 50 top flight Italian games. I suspect this will be deleted but there's probably enough here if someone wants to update and recreate the article - can't support a full keep since I haven't looked through the Italian sources, nor am I motivated to update this article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a look there and, unfortunately, most of the sources weren't sufficient for notability purposes. Four of them were just transfer announcements. One was a profile page on football.it. One seems to be a furniture website. Three are notes rather than references and the other two only seem to mention her once. This isn't to say that good references don't exist but I've done a Google search and ProQuest search and not picked up anything other than what's stated in my nom. Spiderone 23:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that search of yours, I ran an Italy-specific search on DuckDuckGo (Google has gotten worse over the years I've found) and came up with [21] [22] [23] [24] and a few match reports. There may be more out there as well - DDG isn't amazing, but it's a good tool. SportingFlyer T·C 23:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bookmark that website for sure. Very useful for finding sources on footballers from non-Anglophone countries. Coppola, in my view, is probably one good source away from GNG. This one from your selection is quite detailed and this one is okay. Definitely looks to be borderline. Spiderone 00:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 17:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Harvey

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

No indications of notability, no in-line references. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 23:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 23:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and I'm not seeing anything that satisfies WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of indications of notability such as this. If inline citations are wanted then this is done by improving the article, not by deleting it, per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: I see that the subject is mentioned in a book; I don’t see any obvious evidence of notability there. If I’m overlooking something, please let me know. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't see the wood for the trees. Being written about in detail in a good source like a book is what we mean by notability. It doesn't matter what the details are. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could find in any Sunday issue of The New York Times a richer and more detailed piece of writing on a person who wouldn’t be considered notable by current community-accepted criteria. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed coverage in the NYT would usually be accepted as reasonable evidence of notability. JamesLucas seems to have participated in few AfDs and this may explain their different perception. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given of those who want to have this article kept, and I even more so agree now that new evidence which has been shown by those who want to keep this article seems valid in my opinion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. It seems a fairly marginal case, but I think the coverage of his oil activities probably does meet WP:GNG. He seems to have a public park named after him too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron: Some notability debates are quickly determined by the existence of references, but this is one where I think it pays to read the content. It’s not a public park, it’s a real estate development named Harvey Park that was built on the land he was forced to divest when his other businesses failed. Currently that development exists on Wikipedia as a red link in the list of neighborhoods in Denver § Southwest. If that link were ever to turn blue, Arthur Harvey would merit a sentence or two in the neighborhood article. But he falls far short of the mark of notability for a dedicated bio. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 20:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: fails BASIC and barely meets MILPERSON. The Ace in Spades (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC) — The Ace in Spades (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]
DELETE: Notable for precisely what? Did Harvey perform a notable act in WWI? Did he earn any distinguishable military awards in either World War? Any lifetime achievements beyond discovering several oil fields? (Possibly worthy of a brief mention in a subsection upon some oil-related Wiki. page but not his own.) Harvey led an impressive life, but, in my own humble opinion, what sets him above the canopy above any soldier, or entrepreneur?--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that it fails WP:SOLDIER, but he seems notable enough as a businessman. The article needs a cleanup and inline citations, but people who have been the subjects of books are reasonably notable. Dimadick (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Dimadick, he is not the “subject of books”. He’s the subject of 1¼ pages in a book. He made it into a book on Denver history not because of his business success, but because his name ended up on modestly sized housing development that itself has not yet been deemed sufficiently notable to have become the subject of an article. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 04:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it doesn't matter why Harvey has 1 1/4 pages in Men Of Achievement (in around 70 libraries) that is not a trivial one line mention, article lists two other books where Harvey is apparently discussed (Farmlands, Forts, and Country Living 10 libraries, and The Realm of Rusk County 100 libraries) if these can be confirmed, then wikinotability will be met. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after doing a bit of digging, I was able to confirm that Farmlands, Forts, and Country Living does provide Harvey with SIGCOV, he gets just over a page of coverage as can be seen here:[25]. It is very likely that The Realm of Rusk County also provides SIGCOV of Harvey, as can be seen here:[26]. Therefore, he passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Devonian Wombat: I’m still a bit perplexed that we might take books like these seriously as a foundation for notability. They’re county histories, one step above self-published, and not the subject of any serious research standards. There must be hundreds of thousands of twentieth-century Americans living during the heyday of local news and the rise of affordable publishing who were the subject of a one- to three-page write-up of this caliber. Clearly this can't be a good threshold, can it? —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 21:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you Devonian Wombat:). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - some sources points to WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think that the nominator's objections become weaker as more people find coverage. The Heritage magazine article, "Harvey Park: Building a Mid-Century Neighborhood for Denver", is a reliable source that disputes the nominator's claim that the neighborhood is not notable. County histories are not "one step above self-published". The coverage for this article is fine. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: I apologize for my ambiguous wording regarding county histories: I did not mean to say that all county histories are one step above self-published. I meant to say that these histories are. (FWIW, I did not say that Harvey Park fails notability criteria, only that it hasn’t been notable enough for anyone to have bothered to write an article, yet.) The new source you bring to the conversation, “Harvey Park Memories” in Colorado Heritage, mentions Arthur Harvey only once. That instance, however, is of note because it actually contradicts the origin story told in Farmlands, Forts, and Country Living. The magazine article frames Harvey as a shrewd developer selecting ideal land for development, where as the mini-chapter in the book states that he sold his own ranch and implies that he did so when his oil and refrigerated storage businesses failed. So far WP:GNG is being offered as the only rationale for notability, and it’s now evident that at least one of these references is not to be trusted. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 02:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a new source; it's the one that Brigade Piron suggested above. In my opinion, you are trying too hard to get this article deleted. I suggest taking a step back, and allowing other editors to look at the article and sources, and reach their own conclusions. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: I’m not so much bent on the article’s deletion as much as I am frustrated that not once in this conversation have I gotten the feeling that participants have been looking at the article and sources. Many of the above responses strongly indicate that the participants haven’t even bothered to hit Ctrl F to get the easiest possible overview of the content. Having said that, my raising questions is clearly not eliciting a dialogue, constructive or otherwise, about notability or quality of sources, so you might be right that it’s time to move on. (Regarding “Memories”, you are of course correct that that article is the same one Brigade Piron brought to the discussion last week. Who located it, though, is not central to my point about the contradiction illustrating the unreliability of these sources.) —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 14:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Zubavlenko

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

Quite frankly, the article fails the WP:GNG test despite passing WP:NFOOTY as I got no results for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. Subject is 21 years and currently playing for a club in a fully professional league and has played in the current season with his last apperance on 1st August 2020 and is part of the current team.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already passes WP:NFOOTY, I've snooped around and found videos of this guy. There are also news articles in Russian, so this does passes WP:GNG. Neverbuffed (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL with ongoing career. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he just about passes NFOOTBALL; if he doesn't make any further appearances and retires then it might be worth bringing this back for further discussion but I see no reason to delete the article when he still has an active career Spiderone 22:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Safi Al-Zaqrati

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY, the player fails WP:GNG with only brief mentions about him. HawkAussie (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY .Subject is 21 years and currently playing in a club in a fully prodessional league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL with ongoing career. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he just about passes NFOOTBALL; if he doesn't make any further appearances and retires then it might be worth bringing this back for further discussion but I see no reason to delete the article when he still has an active career Spiderone 22:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Waziri

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY, the lack of resources for this player (most being brief) means this player fail WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that comprehensively failing GNG is far more important than a technical pass of NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he just about passes NFOOTBALL with 18 appearances; if he doesn't make any further appearances and retires then it might be worth bringing this back for further discussion but I see no reason to delete the article when he still has an active career Spiderone 22:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al-Zayni

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

Looking through these articles I suspect that the article might fail WP:GNG despite passing WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HawkAussie, did you mean WP:NFOOTY in the second instance? Java Hurricane 02:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it was meant be that. HawkAussie (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. Subject is 24 years and currently playing for a club in a fully professional league an his last appreance in the current season was on 17th October 2020 and is part of the current team.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL with ongoing career. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he just about passes NFOOTBALL; if he doesn't make any further appearances and retires then it might be worth bringing this back for further discussion but I see no reason to delete the article when he still has an active career Spiderone 22:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Cipriano

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

Individual does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 01:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article in another language that is a clear attempt to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion. Plus, the creator is almost surely a paid editor who creates articles for non-notable people as a means for promotion. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG either.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 01:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Spam. G11 is the solution here. Java Hurricane 02:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG/BIO by a country mile Spiderone 09:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Going with deletes here. I'm happy to draftify if someone wants to merge anything from the article. However, none of the keeps really presented rationale behind sourcing aside from one user stating that it's been mentioned in regional publications. Thanks for keeping things civil and respecting this decision. Missvain (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Independence Party

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties. This group are not-notable, is one of those parties which breaks GNG and ORG and similar policies. Notable coverage is minimal and editors appear to be broadly linked to the Party with little to no independent coverage. An article which is mostly promotion, and not achievement, is not an article to keep. doktorb _words^deeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even registered (though that need not, in itself, be grounds for deletion) and seems to be no more than a wishful thought on the part of a person or small group. (And not all editors are "broadly linked to the Party", thank you.) Emeraude (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already found five sources that help it pass GNG. Editors links to the party is pure conjecture. "Wishful thought" is a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL, isn't it? Nonsense nomination. ItsKesha (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with ItsKesha. This may be a small movement but is certainly a notable movement as the media sources prove. "Wishful thought" is a entirly subjective opinion by Emeraude. NDNSWMI (talk) 20 November 2020 — Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. Such new endeavors/ventures are may get some coverage, which is inherently trivial until the organization achieves something more tangible. I'm sure there are many cases of frivolous secessionism, it certainly has been in Norway as well, i.e. both Western Norway and Northern Norway which gained some news coverage, but nothing lasting. Geschichte (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Emeraude is incorrect to cite registration as a requirement for a political party in the United Kingdom. Even if NIP does not register with the electoral commission this is not a requirement for a party to form. "Registration of a political party is not compulsory and you can only apply to register a party if you have an intention to contest elections" ^[2]. Moreover, Geschichte is incorrect to refer to the British television coverage (ITV) and a major national newspaper (The Independent) as trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reply: I did not "cite registration as a requirement for a political party in the United Kingdom" - it isn't. The point I made is antirely valid. Please do not misrepresent. Emeraude (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate movement growing at a pace due to the strong feeling of people who identify as Northumbrians. To delete this article would be tantamount to cancel culture initiated by someone who simply disagrees with the politics of the Northern Independence Party, which should not stop others learning about it. Kinkyfish (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "I'm sure there are many cases of frivolous secessionism, it certainly has been in Norway as well, i.e. both Western Norway and Northern Norway which gained some news coverage, but nothing lasting." like has been said it not the job of wikipedia to foretell collapse of a movement if it fades to nothing then delete it if it achieves nothing before it fades but it is getting picked up by UK media and is gaining momentum --82.46.202.229 (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— 82.46.202.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep It is clearly politically motivated to seek to delete an article on the claim that The Independent, ITV, Vice magazine, The Express, talkRADIO and a whole range of regional papers – including The Northern Echo – are not "Independent Coverage." NIP is notable as a new party having featured so strongly in a vast array of independent media. I would suggest it is this attempt to delete the entry that is politically motivated. I see no evidence that the editors are 'broadly linked to the party' Any commentator arguing the case for deletion that tries to suggest national press coverage in UK-wide newspapers and television is not good enough for Wikipedia, is very clearly politically motivated. The Daily Express is a national newspaper and right-wing – coverage is not only sympathetic.^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Vasey2020 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Apparently there's just a few YouTube and Twitter citations, which is a bad citation per WP:TWITTER; and has a few coverage. When I checked per WP:RS/P, there's some doubtful press like Vice, and The Independent. It also may fall under WP:RS. The registration as a political party itself is not meeting notability criteria.--Ahmetlii (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment apparently you're completley wrong about the sources being YouTube and Twitter. ItsKesha (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after looking at the sources, this seems to fail WP:NORG and WP:NOTNEWS simultaneously, and seems largely promotional in nature. SportingFlyer T·C 21:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To refer to British television coverage, a national newspapers like The Independent and the Daily Express as "promotional in nature" is evidently incorrect.^[4] Vasey2020 (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm referring not to the sources but instead to WP:PROMO, which indicates an article should be deleted if it's promotional in nature and nothing would be left after cleaning up the promotional text. I think this qualifies at the moment, as it's just the political stances of an unregistered political party. There's also recentism/WP:NOTNEWS concerns. Finally, the reference you've added doesn't significantly cover the party - it just asks the founder a couple questions, and doesn't count towards WP:NORG's heightened notability standards. SportingFlyer T·C 11:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Create Northern independence or Northern England independence page similar to the London independence page; merge and have a section dedicated to the party. — (Not logged in at the moment) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C100:32B0:F570:F027:FE64:4DCB (talk)
Merge relevant parts to new Northern England Independence (or similar) article. The wider movement seems notable in itself, but the party (which isn't even registered with the Electoral Commission) is definitely not. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 22:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is now an article for Northern Independence, which covers historical and recent pushes for autonomy and independence for the North of England - Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep pass GNG and sources are GTG. Mr-5 / ^{M ✉ / C🖋} 09:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's been a lot of discussion so far about the sources given and GNG, so I used this tool to make the following table to evaluate the sources in the current version of the article. From this, I don't think these sources are good enough to demonstrate notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The few sources given that appear acceptable are from local newspapers, which makes me think this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE - as these 'good' sources seem to be news articles about the formation of the party, (mainly in light of the Andy Burnham vs UK Government stand-off over tier 3 funding etc). @Ahmetlii above raised the issue of WP:TOOSOON which I agree with - this may become a more notable political party, however, it's too soon to say if it will or not. Seagull123 Φ 16:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:Seagull123**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Sunderland Echo		Same article as source #8 from the Blackpool Gazette		✔ Yes
The Independent			~ Article's main focus is on the concept of "Northern Independence", but uses the party('s leader) as a way of discussing this concept	~ Partial
Vice		? No consensus on reliability per WP:RSP	Article about possible northern independence; very brief mention of the party	✘ No
Yorkshire Bylines		? I've never heard of this website before, their Twitter account calls them "Independent citizen journalism" - so possibly unreliable	Article discusses the party, but devotes at least half to previous proposals for regional devolution	? Unknown
Red Pepper	Appears to be written by the party - a lot of use of "we believe..." etc	? Written by the party on this website.		✘ No
Redaction Politics		? Never heard of the website before; their Twitter account has about 400 followers, so it's unlikely to be a really reliable source		? Unknown
Northern Echo				✔ Yes
Blackpool Gazette		Same article as source #1 from the Sunderland Echo		✔ Yes
The Alternative UK	? It appears to be about the Red Pepper article (source #5) which is by the party	? Again, never heard of this website before - their Twitter has ~2.7k followers		? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

- Question sorry, are you actually using Twitter followers as a measure of reliability? If so I'll see if I can get Katy Perry and Rihanna to comment on the issue. ItsKesha (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha: the reason I mentioned the number of Twitter followers - which I admit I didn't explain before - is due to the reason that I had never heard of the websites before, and I couldn't find anything about those websites elsewhere. Therefore, I looked at their social media accounts to see what they were saying/what was being said about them. For example, the "Redaction News" one, as it has only around 400 followers, this suggests that it isn't a reliable source, as if it was, it would likely have more. I know this isn't an 'official' way of measuring reliability; but in the absence of anything else I could find about these sources outside of their own websites/social media accounts, it is useful in demonstrating that these are likely just low-traffic blog-style 'news' sources. Seagull123 Φ 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add to what I just said, there's nothing (that I could find) which suggests that Yorkshire Bylines, Red Pepper, Redaction Politics, or The Alternative UK are reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes - that's why I marked them as of questionable reliability, as there was also nothing I could find which suggested they're definitely unreliable. Seagull123 Φ 17:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BRB, just checking if the Daily Mail (2.5 million Twitter followers) has said anything yet. Oh. Why not simply take the sources in good faith until you find something which suggests otherwise? And if you're accusing these sites of being unreliable, are you also accusing me of being an unreliable editor for using these sources? If you've found a reason these sources are unreliable, other than "I've never heard of them, they have a low number of Twitter followers", I'd very much love to read it. Because this just seems like needless gatekeeping to me. ItsKesha (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is a deprecated source on Wikipedia so we would likely discount them anyway. @ItsKesha: and @Seagull123: - if you haven't heard of those websites before, they are likely not notable enough. My Spidey senses are tingling in regards to "The Alternative UK", in particular. Just because an article has tonnes of sources doesn't mean it should be kept: those sources could be rehashed press releases or blogs, both of which shouldn't satisfy AfD decisions either. doktorb _words^deeds 20:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if the sources are notable, that's not even the debate here. Whether you've heard of a source does not affect the reliability of the source. ItsKesha (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, if the sources are not notable (blogs, unknown or obscure sites, self-published resources etc) then they hold less credibility and weight than notable sources (established newspapers, periodicals etc). A press release rehashed across hundreds of sites, perhaps word-for-word, is not likely to do the case for GNG any good. doktorb _words^deeds 23:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help you all out here - Yorkshire Bylines is a Northern (ooh, biased!) offshoot of Byline Times, which was set up by Peter Jukes. The Alternative is an English offshoot of Danish political party Alternativet, set up by Uffe Elbæk. And RedAction is a new media with a full team of editors and journalists who have written and worked for other reputable sources. The information is easily available on all three websites. But you know, they don't have hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter! ItsKesha (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsKesha: just to make it clear - I am not accusing you of being "unreliable", I can't see that anyone else has accused you of such, and I have never done so. To address the issue of whether these sources that we're discussing can be considered reliable or not, I've looked at WP:SOURCE (part of the verifiability policy), and according to this, we should [b]ase articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - I have seen no evidence so far that the sources we're discussing here have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (emphasis added). Per ItsKesha's description above of what these sources are above, they appear to be more in the style of political blogs/alternative media, which - while useful as sources for what their publishers/writers believe on a subject - I don't believe count as reliable sources for WP:GNG's purposes: as they are unlikely to have a reputation for fact-checking, they may have issues with not being fully independent, and it's possible they may (correct me if I'm wrong) be self-published sources. Seagull123 Φ 17:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: PINGing @Zoozaz1, as they accepted this article from a draft through WP:AFC, and therefore may be interested in this discussion. Seagull123 Φ 16:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the ping. I do believe that this passes WP:GNG, and I think WP:THREE is helpful in determining that. I do not think WP:ROUTINE applies here, mainly because of the WP:INDEPTH coverage given, much more than a routine announcement. The coverage is primarily local, but the mention in the Independent helps in establishing national significance as well. Zoozaz1 talk 17:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Independence piece was only an interview with the founder. It's not WP:SIGCOV and doesn't pass WP:NORG. I understand why you accepted, but I would have declined this at AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Merging, I thought it might be worth pointing out the Separatism in the United Kingdom article. It has a (I assume new) section on Northern England independence as a movement. — (Not logged in at the moment) 04:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C100:32B0:9DAC:871F:9AF4:B909 (talk)
Keep, as it passes WP:GNG, the local newspapers this party received coverage in, such as the the Blackpool Gazette, serve areas with large enough populations to be considered reliable in my view. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Borderline keep. Multiple RS sources referring to this party, and plenty of regional papers. Seems to be a legitiamte lobby group for a noted and current issue. The Northern movement, however impractical and unlikely, does have some legitimate support. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be a pretty clear Keep to me - informative references, seems to pass notability without that much question. I also fixed the piece that was tagged as unreferenced, as the sentence in question comes from the article in the Sunderland Echo.--Concertmusic (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that I have already provided my input and vote above. Having said that, I would like to attempt to address a couple of points made early in the debate. There is a reference to TOOSOON, as well as one on 'frivolous secessionism' and 'wishful thinking'. Please refer to the recognized and significantly funded initiative Northern Powerhouse, which is connected to this party and its goals per this source, which is not yet incorporated into the article. I would argue that there is a clear recognition of the real dangers of a northern movement in the vein of the NIP. Maybe food for thought to alleviate those concerns.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and relevant. Wjfox2005 (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think it passes GNG. — Czello 08:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the canvassing, non policy based voting, spas getting bo weight and pure assertion this come down to source analysis that the Keep side has yet to do. I strongly advise someone arguing keep to actually list the best 3 and demonstrate how they meet RS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -has received significant media attention and is clearly notable at this point. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as other editors have mentioned, Northern independence now exists, though it is itself being considered for deletion - my personal thoughts are that, as YorkshireLad suggests on the AfD page, something like Devolution to the North of England or Devolution of Northern England would be a better choice of article title, as it's more exacting whilst covering a range of opinions on devolution at the same time. 'Northern independence' is pretty generic. As the 9th Doctor said, lots of planets have a North...

In regards to this article - two of the sources are for the flag colours, the rest seem to be general "what would an independent Northern England look like?" pieces, and the rest just seem to mention the party's new existence. It'd be much better suited to a subheading on an article thoroughly covering the different viewpoints and movements for devolution of some kind in the North of England. If NIP go on to be more notable, then this article will likely be re-created, but for now, as none of us happen to be Mystic Meg, I cannot see it being notable enough to stay.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator of this AfD I feel I should say two things. Firstly, I still believe this article should be deleted. Secondly, I can't remember any of my previous AfD being this contentious and I thank editors for remaining (mostly) civil. doktorb _words^deeds 19:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will note that while Northern Independence now has its own article (I created it), its likely to have it's name changed and the focus changed, away from Northern Independence specifically (as part of the conditions of the AFD)....which means merging this article with it *may* not be such an obvious solution to deleting this article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a close call but I don't think this group quite meets the notability standard yet. Most of the sources are either unreliable sources, or are passing mentions in articles about the more general concept of northern cessationism. I'm leary of local newspaper references conferring notability too, sources like this can certainly be useful for adding information, but if you open a new bar your local newspaper will dedicate an article to it, and that won't be notable either. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still a delete - I don't know how someone could close this as delete, but it still should be deleted. This is a non-notable fake political party that still fails WP:NORG and that has fallen out of the news cycle. SportingFlyer T·C 18:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, in the hope that some more !voters are willing to discuss which sources confer notability; the AfD closer cannot be expected to evaluate all the sources present on the page. If this does not occur, I would recommend a no consensus closure and speedy renomination with a semi- or EC-protected AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Northern independence. An interesting AfD! I'm willing to accept the references, however, have a problem with what we'd be preserving if this closes as keep. The article is brief and should still be shortened as it contains unnecessary comparisons. Meaning there is almost no there there. In addition, this "party" isn't really a party, it's unregistered and has never participated in anything. Meaning that there's absolutely no there there. This leads me to the conclusion that the contents belong with the greater movement and idea for Northern independence, where it is already mentioned and discussed. Until anything is official should not be recreated either! (for clarity: in a keep or delete dichotomy, this would be a delete but I strongly prefer merge over delete!) gidonb (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until Now (film)

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

Nothing found to help it pass WP:NFILM. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from my previous edit summary): Has the usual film coverage, e.g. https://www.siamzone.com/movie/news/6577 https://www.sanook.com/movie/36727 https://www.thairath.co.th/content/396045 --Paul_012 (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails WP:NFO. Kolma8 (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.trtworld.com/magazine/has-iran-sent-arms-to-libyan-warlord-haftar-violating-un-sanctions-42200

[2] ttps://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/intro-registration-rp.pdf

[3] ttps://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1360322/Boris-Johnson-news-pm-northern-independence-party-proudfoot-Scotland-uk-politics-ont

[4] ttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/independent-north-england-devolution-yorkshire-manchester-north-east-b1481784.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]