Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lets put this one out of its missery, clear BLP1E, other BLP issues WP:BLPCRIME, WP:SNOW. . Salix alba (talk): 17:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam C. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (if it isn't speedied first) fails GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 00:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wouldn't object to him being mentioned on the main article about the riots but a standalone page is a bit much. RexSueciae (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Case study of WP:BLP1E. Not even worth mentioning at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. KidAd talk 00:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, like the other individuals who are not notable other than for storming the capitol. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nominator. Good grief, this could also be a defamation problem if it emerges that the subject is not the person photographed in the image. Very irresponsible article to create at this time IMHO. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete | See WP:BLP1E and above bullet. Thrakkx (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete per BLP1E. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The very definition of WP:BLP1E. If an a few months people are still talking about his apparent involvement, then maybe he can be added to the protests page and a redirect created, but this is a clear BLP1E, ruling out a stand-alone article. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough gng for this individual. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• At this time, there is not enough coverage of Mr. Johnson to justify claims of notability. Delete. DS (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a shred of notability Spiderone 13:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete for lack of notability. Starzoner (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom, above rationales, and WP:BLPCRIME as explained by BrxBrx above. warmly, ezlev. talk 18:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete nomination rationale, above rationale. — Mainly 18:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: He's just some super obscure, random doofus who is better known as "Via Getty" for a single picture. He's not even worth mentioning on the Storming of the Capitol page. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW Delete. Clear consensus here is to delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article about the storming. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Significant coverage in The Guardian, Evening Standard, New York Times, Newsweek, Forbes (staff), BuzzFeed (dubious), mentions in Vox. No doubt you could find ten times more coverage of such standard with more than 3 minutes of research. BLP1E is up for debate but draftifying or redirecting would be the solution if the issue is current sourcing. Likely this does warrant a mention at the main Capitol storming article (with the best level of sourcing). — Bilorv (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with optional redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol all per Wikipedia:BLP1E. I would have deleted this myself, but, I just nominated the Richard "Bigo" Barnett article for deletion/redirect. Missvain (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW, no conclusion about the redirect--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard "Bigo" Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Richard Barnett (U.S. Capitol intruder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for now, as Barnett is clearly not a WP:LOWPROFILE individual. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG as a clear example of WP:BLP1E. KidAd talk 00:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no reason every person who was at the Capitol needs an article. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems a clear BLP1E. Not sure if a redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is justified or not. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Archetype example of an individual notable for just one event, Although, @power~enwiki does raise a good point. Celestina007 (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. There are claims that the invasion of the Capitol was a false-flag event. There should be pages on the offenders giving their background of being right wing since before Trump.LachlanA (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely going to need reliable sources to back up the "claims" you mention... Thrakkx (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like an attempt to ignore WP:GNG policy in order to soapbox and right a great wrong. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol page itself makes it clear enough with literally hundreds of citations that these were right-wing, pro-Trump protesters and not a false flag; if someone doesn't believe those sources, that's not our problem to deal with. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This input is ridiculous and should frankly be salted. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factual disputes about the event should be covered in the event page, giving due weight to the conflicting views as supported by reliable sources. The facts can be stated in a paragraph or two in the event article rather than creating one-event biography stubs for alleged, but not-yet-convicted perpetrators. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Definitely a wp:gng and wp:blp1e issue. Possibly also a wp:SUSPECT problem as well. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete | See WP:BLP1E Thrakkx (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, especially WP:BLP1E. I agree with power~enwiki and Celestina007 that a redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol might be suitable. warmly, ezlev. talk 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now per nom and everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the article about the storming. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and redirect per WP:BLP1E. Redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Missvain (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E; also, under the Presumption of innocence policies in the US it should be impermissible to refer to someone as a criminal without being charged first. Augend (drop a line) 00:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Being one of hundreds who participated in an insurrection - his only extraordinary notability being the theft of a letter - does not lend credence to viability as a page on Wikipedia. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE per nom. There is nothing notable about the subject prior to rioters, including him, overtaking the Capitol. The subject has yet to be convicted. Also, allowing an un-notable subject's article to remain on Wikipedia feels like a public relations move for the subject. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:NOTNEWS WP:BLP1E WP:CRIME. The several arrestees should be listed in the main article perhaps. Reywas92^Talk 02:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have created a one-liner in the main article on the arrestee. Albertaont (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear WP:BLP1E Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listing new article title. Page has been moved at least twice. • Gene93k (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. At the moment, the only rioter partially notable for attending the event was Jake Angeli. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayrton Sonkur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to be subject to significant coverage in multiple sources so does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Alleged two appearances for Queen of the South, which would give him presumed notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, do not appear to be supported by any reliable sources. I have checked Football Database, Soccerway, WF, Flashscore, Football Critic and GSA. Most confirm that he was on the bench once for them but never played. Spiderone 23:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by Spiderone. Celestina007 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL (no senior apps for QOTS per Soccerbase). GiantSnowman 09:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ,Lacks coverage, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Alex-h (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I fully agree with the points made about failing notability guidelines made above. Dunarc (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Asian Pacific Islander Desi American Students Union (MAASU) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an article about a regional students' union created by a user with a username that indicates a strong connection with the subject. I looked around and I can't find multiple independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail, so as far as I can tell, it fails the GNG. Slashme (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references on the article are all primary, and my search did not find any secondary sources. Jeepday (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Although there's some minor coverage, it's too insignificant. ~EdGl talk 16:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryggeriet Skands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I haven't been able to find significantly better sources than those that are in the article now, and the Danish article is not better sourced. There is a reference to CNN and BBC Radio in the "Information" source, but as far as I can see those organizations pieces were about the Superflexs Free beer concept and not about Skands Brewery. Sjö (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sjö (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sjö (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Sjö (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; lacks coverage. Perhaps other Danish microbrewery articles need to be evaluated as well. ~EdGl talk 20:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked at the other language page, the references on the English article, and searched google; I do not see anything that meets WP:GNG Jeepday (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine Socialite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not significant enough for WP: GNG. Juliett0907 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: basically meets CSD A3.   // Timothy :: talk  00:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, none found via DDG News, barely any content. MER-C 12:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lord Grandwell (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Renminbi#Coins. It's up to editors whether to merge anything that can be sourced from the history. Sandstein 07:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Modern Coins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unreferenced since 2009, recommend merging into Renminbi#Coins. Also, the lead paragraph claims that modern Chinese coinage "dates from 1979", however the first renminbi coins were minted in 1953, and circulated in 1955. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The content of this article appears to cover precious metal commemorative coins (Non-circulating legal tender), not coins as in circulating coins. That is why the dates don't match up with renmenbi coins, so the proposed merger target is inappropriate. CMD (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Tough one The content clearly belongs somewhere but it also needs to be referenced. I'm not sure a stand-alone article is warranted, that would depend on whether it has "significant coverage" from "reliable, independent sources" and whether, editorially, a stand-alone article is better. If the coins are legal tender, then I disagree with Chipmunkdavis on Renminbi not being a suitable merge target, but it probably should have its own section, separate from Renminbi#Coins. This is a situation that calls for cleanup, and "deletion is not cleanup." If you have to put me down for something, put me down for "preserve history somewhere, no objection to turning page title into a redirect or a locked-redirect." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, I would prefer merging/moving content to a different page, over outright deletion. If Renminbi isn't an appropriate merge target, then Non-circulating legal tender could potentially be made into a catch-all page covering commemorative coins from all countries; then if that's not suitable, then this page at least needs a cleanup, with references added, and probably also a title rename to something more specific than "modern coins". --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't want to start an "all countries' commemorative legal tender coins get listed here" page for commemorative coins or, as you suggest, re-purposing a different page to turn it into one without at least notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics as they would likely be maintaining it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I agree about the rename, but that's a topic for after this AFD closes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 20:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some overlap with Bullion coin, which includes some Chinese coins already, but it is organised per-metal rather than per-country. CMD (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chipmunkdavis: That would make a reasonable redirect target, using {{R to related topic}} and {{R with history}} inside {{rcat shell}}, with a link back to this discussion in the page history in the {{Old XfD multi}} template on Talk:Chinese Modern Coins. As I said earlier, this is a "tough one" with several reasonable solutions. To the closer: I'll "not oppose consensus" for any reasonable outcome that preserves the history. That includes the history-preserving outcomes mentioned in this discussion so far. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Renminbi#Coins per davidwr comments above. We should never merge unsourced material into another article, espeicially into a reasonably sourced target at the level of the Renminbi. If sources could be found to turn this into a stub, I have no objection.   // Timothy :: talk  23:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• merge with Cash (Chinese coin) or with Renminbi#Coins. This is definitely encyclopedic content, but I can't see it as a standalone page. As far as I can tell, the coinage issues of a currency are not by themselves notable unless they have gained significant coverage through for example, special limited editions, botched recalls, or something of the like. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 03:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway, Barren County, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. The only Halfway mention in Rennick's Barren County directory is an individual house (probably referring to something else), his index calls this place a locale but doesn't describe it. Topos show three houses at a crossroads. I've been able to find two or three passing mentions in newspapers.com and Google books, but nothing significant - everything significant is for Halfway, Allen County, Kentucky. Not seeing a way this place is notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, fails GNG and NGEO. WP:GEOLAND "informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources."   // Timothy :: talk  00:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intrepid (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article fails WP:NFSOURCES; the Radio Times link is a capsule review and capsule reviews are "insufficient to fully establish notability" per NFSOURCES. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find anything to establish notability either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found a few examples of coverage, although they weren't plentiful or in-depth: [1], [2], [3]. It's quite possible that more coverage exists from the time of its release. --Michig (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above mentioned coverage. Seems enough to pass WP:GNG Donaldd23 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuttings Wharf, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It was literally a wharf, which the county took over back in the 1920s and gradually turned into the marina it is today. Doesn't seem to be notable, and certainly isn't an never was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. No post office. GBooks had a few hits, but all fairly trivial. newspapers.com found a number of hits including an article about the history of Cuttings Wharf and about the low quality housing. The Napa Valley Register has coverage from around 2011 about the housing and its eventual demolition. The state of California recognizes a boat launch at this location, but I don't feel that necessarily meets legal recognition of a community, so #1 of WP:GEOLAND is not met. However, there seems to be non-trivial coverage of the location from multiple sources, so on that basis #2 of WP:GEOLAND is met. In particular, that there is an article about Cuttings Wharf meets my needs, and there are other articles such as [4] over the years. It is of interest and possibly notable how this location at one time provided low income housing in a county known for its affluence. I don't have strong feelings about keeping this article, though I did just now spend some time adding references and I feel like it meets a basic standard of notability. Cxbrx (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that explains a peculiar detail in some of the aerials, which show a dense cluster of "buildings" which, from these articles, were actually war surplus army tents. I'll have to look into this a bit further; I'm not quite clear on the notability. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of various sources [5] indicate that actual buildings were moved, not surplus army tents. That being written, I'm fine with this article being deleted if it is too WP:MILL. It seems like a typical very small community with substandard housing that results in evictions. FWIW - there are signs on CA-12 for this locale and "Napa Valley Resorts". This does not make the locale notable, but I was always curious as to what exactly was down those roads. Cxbrx (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - thanks to Cxbrx, this article has passed the Heymann Standard and has proven notability, because it now has more verified historical content which proves the notability. Koridas 📣 21:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While this is another one of these articles about non settlements that were mass created by Carlossuarez46. However, Cxbrx has done a fine job of improving the article with references.___Kieran207 talk 22:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Mathesius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable architect; total failure of WP:SIGCOV. I made a good faith effort to propose deletion, with proper notices to editors, and evidence of the same was deleted by a third party editor. This has been tagged for notability for a decade without any substantive improvements. It was proposed for deletion in the past, and that was refused without stating any reason. This person is clearly not notable, and I'm unclear why editors keep trying to keep this biographical stub -- little more than a WP:DICDEF -- in the face of lack of sources and not making any effort to fix the per se deficiencies. I have not nominated an article for deletion in many years, and I have no axe to grind, but this one is a clear case for me. Anyway, I'm bringing the matter to the community. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. The last time I nominated an article for deletion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Anselm, about 6 and a half years ago. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "working with" a firm that is awarded the contract to design a post office is not the stuff that notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Google search and Google news search shows no major online publications featuring this person, the only thing I could find is this book? https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/env-review/east_midtown/06_feis.pdf which lists him as an architect of an important building in NYC. I'm not an expert in architecture, if one exists here, please advise your opinion/analysis of available info online. If he has worked on historic / landmark projects, it should be added to the page and referenced, otherwise as-is it is a clear delete as per nominator. If new reliable sources showing notability / major architectural works are found in the future, a new page can be created. CosmicNotes (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Due to computer problems, I was unable to reply for several days. Should we alert additional Wiki projects, or does an admin want to re-list this discussion? Bearian (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Per rationale by Bearian, I do not believe there is significant coverage. Celestina007 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael Atherton. Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. Daniel (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NLIST as it says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Completely sourced with cricinfo. Störm (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge, this and other similar lists are allowed as per WP:SPLIT. There are 72 articles in Category:Lists of international cricket centuries by player, so if this one is problematic, then there should be a discussion about the whole set. If the convention that he doesn't have enough to have a separate article is not met then this should be merged back to Michael Atherton. If people want to argue that this is WP:NOTSTATS then none of the List of centuries... should exist, as they are created as splits from the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some are WP:NOTSTATS, not all. List for which there are sources that discuss the player's centuries in detail, for that, we can create a separate list per WP:NLIST. We don't need any arbitrary number, like 25, to create such lists. Störm (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm: your point makes sense but surely that would mean articles like this, which is a featured list by the way, would be nominated for deletion. Would you nominate an article like that or this for AFD as it fails WP:NLIST? CreativeNorth (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking specifically about the addition of this list back into the parent page. I agree with the recent AfDs that held that if there was no need for a split, then the content should be merged. Spike 'em (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge as per Spike'em. CreativeNorth (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand the quote from the referenced WP:NLIST :One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources andThere is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. There is clearly no consensus that the only notability criteria for a standalone list is that is has been discussed as a group. There is also the guidance in WP:NOTSTATS that :Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two criteria, either list topic should have coverage as a group in multiple WP:RS or we create list navigational purpose where we only link articles. WP:NOTSTATS is a general guideline that applies to all articles with statistics. It is not limited to lists and in your quoted text it even doesn't mention that it applies to the list. Störm (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote again:There is no present consensus for how to assess ... what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. This does not match your claim of it having to meet 1 of 2 criteria. NOTSTATS says to split if it makes an article difficult to read. I'm open to discussion as to whether this is the case for these lists, but I hold that the lists should be kept as either a table on the parent article or as a stand-alone list. Spike 'em (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Following earlier AFDs here and here, there is nothing to warrant a separate article, per WP:SPLIT. Per nom, these articles do not stand on their own. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But these earlier AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan resulted in being deleted. There is nothing to warrant a separate article, NOR is there any justifiable reason why such indiscriminate information needs to appear on the players' BLP articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per other outcomes of 'List of international cricket centuries..' articles. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Michael Atherton. Azuredivay (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per other similar lists. Just indiscriminate stats, available on stats sites elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayflower Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability, no significant in-depth coverage of the company was found. Fails WP:COMPANY. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable company that only had a brief corporate existence.TH1980 (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and WP:NOTINHERITED. It appears what little coverage they did get was because of a famous director. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tom Latham (cricketer). Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. Daniel (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NLIST as it says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Störm (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge Have you never heard of WP:MULTIAFD or are you deliberately being disruptive? My keep reasons are on one of the other related AfDs that this should have been bundled with. Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST first and then re-comment. Policies change with time, based on the consensus, so articles/lists should reflect that. You should link your reasoning as your rationale doesn't make sense. Closing admin should ignore such comments. Störm (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: to expand on partially quoted WP:NLIST :One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources andThere is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. There is clearly no consensus that the only notability criteria for a standalone list is that is has been discussed as a group. There is also the guidance in WP:NOTSTATS that :Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATS is a general guideline that applies to all articles with statistics. It is not limited to lists and in your quoted text it even doesn't mention that it applies to the list. Störm (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Following earlier AFDs here and here, there is nothing to warrant a separate article, per WP:SPLIT. Per nom, these articles do not stand on their own. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But these earlier AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan resulted in being deleted. There is nothing to warrant a separate article, NOR is there any justifiable reason why such indiscriminate information needs to appear on the players' BLP articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not indiscriminate information : a century is a significant achievement in a Test match, and I agree with Wjemather that if a standalone article is not necessary then this is valid information to put on a player's page. NOTSTATS acknowledges that some statistical information is valid, and says we should not haveExcessive listings of unexplained statistics. One list of achievements, with an explanation, is not excessive. Spike 'em (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If any significant career achievements should be worthy of mention they should in prose form, with independent secondary sources, on the players' articles. As they are currently, they are just a list of instances where a player scored a century, accompanied by its match reference on Cricinfo. This is the type of stats we should avoid, Wikipedia isn't a fansite. I do not support merging for that reason either. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability Spike 'em (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is whether a list of all matches in which the player scored an international century is noteworthy in the first place. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to main article of the subject. Santosh L (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not sure if you actually looked at the article history but the article has already been proposed for deletion but it was overturned. Other cricket players with only very few more centuries have these type of articles which have not been put up for deletion. Latham is only going to continue to score more centuries and if this article is deleted it will very soon have to be created again. (talk)

• That's not really a good reason to keep an article. If the topic ever does get to a situation where it needs to be created again, then a redirect (where history is retained) is plausible. Also there is no harm for someone to draftify the article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per other outcomes of 'List of international cricket centuries..' articles. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per other similar lists. Just indiscriminate stats, available on stats sites elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Consensus that the film should stay as a draft until it is released. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avalakki Pavalakki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Future film that has no evidence of imminent release, coverage of production has been fairly run-of-the-mill, should not have a standalone article per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 22:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: or at best draftify if there is a possibility of the movie getting sigcov down the line. There's no coverage on this at the moment. I can't speak for any print sources in Kannada, but I can't see any in a search, and if there is any that is not online, it is unlikely to be from a non-local source or an RS. JavaHurricane 11:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftifyper JavaHurricane. –Cupper52^Discuss! 12:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until released. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dinesh Chandimal. Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. Daniel (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Dinesh Chandimal. Azuredivay (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per other outcomes of 'List of international cricket centuries..' articles. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge Have you never heard of WP:MULTIAFD or are you deliberately being disruptive? My keep reasons are on one of the other related AfDs that this should have been bundled with. Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST first and then re-comment. Policies change with time, based on the consensus, so articles/lists should reflect that. You should link your reasoning as your rationale doesn't make sense. Closing admin should ignore such comments. Störm (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To expand the quote from the referenced WP:NLIST :One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources andThere is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. There is clearly no consensus that the only notability criteria for a standalone list is that is has been discussed as a group. There is also the guidance in WP:NOTSTATS that :Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. The closing admin should ignore selectively quoted guidelines. Spike 'em (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSTATS is a general guideline that applies to all articles with statistics. It is not limited to lists and in your quoted text it even doesn't mention that it applies to the list. Störm (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Following earlier AFDs here and here, there is nothing to warrant a separate article, per WP:SPLIT. Per nom, these articles do not stand on their own. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But these earlier AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan resulted in being deleted. There is nothing to warrant a separate article, NOR is there any justifiable reason why such indiscriminate information needs to appear on the players' BLP articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per other similar lists. Just indiscriminate stats, available on stats sites elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mortiis. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC) (amended to reflect the fact that soft redirect does not equate soft delete Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Vond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable music project. This could safely be included in Mortiis' article. I don't see why this needs to be a separate article, especially in this state. It is tagged for references since August 2011, and no sources have been added ever since. During a Google search I only found the standard unreliable sources. Interestingly, searching with "Mortiis Vond" returns a lot of results, but all of them are databases, sites which mirror Wikipedia (also, the text of this article is repeated on several sites, and I have a suspicion that in turn, this was copied from one of these sites), and retail sites. So yeah, not notable on its own, in my opinion. The project doesn't have an article on the Norwegian Wiki either. This can be included in Mortiis' article like I said above. The article was created by a SPA/COI editor way back in 2005, and Mortiis himself has edited the article as well, who also edited other articles that are related to his work. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mortiis, which has already been done for bandleader Håvard Ellefsen. There is nothing to merge because Vond has no reliable and significant coverage. Beyond self-created social media they are only present in the unreliable Encyclopedia Metallum, [6] from which all of this article's text was copied (or vice-versa). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus towards deleting at this time. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Full Moon Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No independent sources, wasn't able to find anything in a BEFORE search online. Does not meet WP:GNG _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unnotable podcast with cruft, original research, and not a single secondary source. IceWelder [✉] 20:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Insomniac Games. --Masem (t) 21:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that this was previously a redirect to Insomniac Games and was restored to article form following an RfD that found the redirect to be unhelpful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm looking at the RFD , which had only one !vote, so it's hard to say there's concensus to say the redirect was unhelpful. It seems a fully valid search term, so I don't see why merging (reduced to a single line or two, not the full article) with a redirect left behind, is anything less than appropriate. --Masem (t) 20:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and don't merge I was considering nominating this page myself and my research found that, not only is this show not notable, it's significantly less notable than a TV series of the same name that aired in the early 1990s. Don't merge because redirects for discussion already voted against this being a redirect and info on this show was erased from Insomniac Games for a reason. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is nothing valuable here for a merge. OceanHok (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nothing to show any notability - fails WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There's nothing useful here that warrants a merge. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 19:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is not SIGCOV from IS RS that addresses the subject directly and indepth to support a stand alone article.   // Timothy :: talk  11:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toktok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable organization that doesn’t satisfy WP:ORGCRIT as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links predominantly to primary sources. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Organization does not receive SIGCOV in RS so therefore does not pass notability requirements laid out in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definitely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous adjectives in English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Usually we have lists which either list wikipedia articles, such as List of eponymous laws (although I doubt the encyclpedicity of the later one as well). At best this page must be moved to wiktionary. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep https://www.bbc.com/learningenglish/burmese/course/intermediate/unit-26/session-1/activity-2 and http://web.stanford.edu/~clark/1980s/Clark,%20H.H.%20_Making%20sense%20of%20nonce%20sense_%201983.pdf give significant coverage to this. Dream Focus 23:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A course in English language for Burmese. An additional confirmation that this list belongs to Wiktionary. A wikipedia article would be Adjectives from surnames in English language, or something. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists don't have to be lists of articles in order to be useful. (Nor would this content be suitable at Wiktionary.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LISTGLOSSARY:Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, many ideas for glossaries, in which entries would be little more than dictionary definitions ("dicdefs"), may be better suited to Wiktionary. Glossaries that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria or not-a-dictionary policy should be migrated to Wiktionary at wikt:Category:English glossaries. Wiktionary also freely forks Wikipedia's encyclopedic glossaries for redevelopment to Wiktionary's purposes and standards, in its Appendix: namespace. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The name of the list should not be changed, but it is a list of notable people and functions as a navigation list meeting WP:CLN WP:AOAL. The view count supports this as a useful navigation list.  // Timothy :: t | c | a   02:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Rama Rao Gandikota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Run-of-the-mill career graph of a retired Commander. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MILPEOPLE. His philately work could hold some water but no WP:SIGCOV and poorly sourced. Author of the article has CoI (son). RationalPuff (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is nothing in the article that shows he served in a top level post or an important role in any war. Fails WP:NSOLDIER requirements. He served in the war as an officer but it is not clear if he served any leading role in the operation he participated in. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: After a WP:BEFORE search the subject has not received WP:SIGCOV in a WP:RS therefore does not meet the notability requirements WP:N and should not be included in the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional and written by his son[7]. Should have been CSD'ed long ago. Kges1901 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:MILL, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:GNG. In 2008 that would be excusable, but in 2021, everybody knows we are not a free web host for your daddy's web page. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

José L. Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross doesn't establish notability Mztourist (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sourcing is not there to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Star Trek: Enterprise (season 1). Consensus that the topic is not notable. May be recreated if you find sufficient sources for WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet (Star Trek: Enterprise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of reviews or commentary. TTN (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Article has eternal references and is a useful guide to the episode but it could do with additional commentary. Rillington (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article only has a single reference, which is an actresses' death article that simply mentions the episode once. That is useless. If you're referring to the external links, they're three wiki-style sites and an official site, so they're not reliable sources. TTN (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the plot summary to Star Trek: Enterprise (season 1). Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 18:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above unless sources are showing that suggset this episode has stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vent Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined WP:AfC draft that was then moved into main space by the author. In line with WP:NSOFT, I have checked for coverage in Gbooks, Gnews and Gscholar and found nothing under both publishers listed in the article. This would not pass WP:GNG by the looks of it either. It is currently referenced only to forum posts that were made on 7th January (yesterday as I type this). I'm no software genius but this doesn't strike me as being a notable enough piece of software for Wikipedia. Spiderone 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After removing all references that led to 404 Not Found, this article currently has ZERO sources. - Insurance Lovers 16 January 2021

The complete lack of sources makes me think that this is a hoax. I mean I can't even find a company website or a Facebook page or anything... Spiderone 22:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the process, but given all of this, could this be changed to a Speedy Deletion? I can't see how anyone would possibly support keeping this. Insurance Lovers 13:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by InsuranceLovers (talk • contribs) [reply]

In hindsight, I should have requested speedy delete as hoax or used WP:PROD. I thought that the article creator might contest deletion so created the AfD but it doesn't look like this software even exists so probably shouldn't have bothered. It's probably best just to let the AfD run its course now that it's been going for 9 days or so. Spiderone 14:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another vanity article with no encyclopedic value. Fails WP:ENT, WP:SPORTSPERSON RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lots of promotionalism but not substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same content, seems like branding PangolinPedia 07:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; the WP:REFBOMBing fails to hide the lack of notability Spiderone 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip Roy (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable author fails WP:AUTHOR. Google search returns nothing substantial, other than linking back to Wiki. Not to be confused with Sandip Ray. RationalPuff (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RationalPuff (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A WP:BEFORE search doesn't reveal much and most of the sources in the article are either primary or wouldn't be considered reliable. Doesn't pass WP:N requirements, therefore delete is my conclusion. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to being a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have heard of him, but without significant coverage, he's not notable. I'm afraid that he's friends with two friends of mine, one of whom is my alternate executor. Yes, the gay world is quite small. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article say that his book longlisted for the DSC Prize, one of the major literary awards in South Asia. But I don't think he has received such nomination. Neither the linked reference nor the DSC wikipage support this fact. If he really has received such nomination, I may change my vote to keep. --Gazal world (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mitichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Exudes promotion, but cannot mask the subject’s insignificance. Relies largely on a couple of softball interviews with questions such as “how did you spend your childhood vacations”, “what is the key to your success”, “what are your career plans”. No objective indication of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources given. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to being a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lipsitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

utterly non-notable corporate dude. No meaningful coverage, everything is sourced to PR and the normal spam mills. My redirect was contested, so afding. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Most sources are articles about the company, that briefly mention him. Others are non-notable sources used to back it up. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't receive SIGCOV in RS and therefore doesn't pass the basic notability guideline for inclusion (See WP:N). --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I confirm what the above editors say; no notability independent of the company. FalconK (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Stars Dance. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Dance (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Except for the chart position on the French singles chart (which does not warrant notability), this article is made up of information within context of album discussions/reviews, and per NSONGS:Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. References used in this article are also doubtful in terms of reliability. HĐ (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention that its peak on the French singles chart was not even in the top 100. Redirect to Stars Dance. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stars Dance. Fails WP:NSONG. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cyberman. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telos (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Same as Mondas, this topic fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to in-universe summaries and contextual mentions in relation to other plot elements. TTN (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cyberman - The article has zero reliable sources, and is comprised almost entirely of plot information. Searching for sources does not actually turn up much in reliable sources - its mentioned here and there in the context of describing the plots of Dr. Who related products, but that's about it. A reasonable redirect target exists, so that should be done, but there is nothing here that should be merged, considering none of it is sourced. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The article has been worked on substantially in the past 15+ years and is a useful resource for those interested in the subject. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how WP:IAR is able to be invoked for a minor plot element simply due to the length of its existence. There are plenty of plot elements that have skipped through the gaps over Wikipedia's existence. This is useful in the same way a Fandom article is useful, good for fans but irrelevant to a general encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Cyberman, pure Wikia material that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cyberman. There are no sources here but it is mentioned at that article. Archrogue (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Cyberman. No evidence of stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cyberman - very clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV on its own Spiderone 11:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cyberman. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With more than 45,000 citations on GScholar, this is miles above our usual threshold for notability (from 1000-2000, depending on the field). As remarked by Xxanthippe, this meets more than one of the criteria in PROF. While we often delete bios on the request of the subject, we only do this is notability is marginal. This is obviously not the case here. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and possibly WP:PROF as well. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1 (even disregarding the papers with the large numbers of coauthors), and his named position is a possible pass of WP:NPROF C5. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Looks to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1, arguably #2, and #5 at least. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Named professor at an Ivy League university, clearly stated at the top of the article, is so obvious a pass of WP:PROF#C5 that the nominator's WP:VAGUEWAVE towards WP:PROF cannot be taken seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think there's a WP:G7 here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • G7. The above user is correct. This is a G7. 2603:7000:2143:8500:780E:6CB0:A1E5:2E2C (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's had too much editing by others to be eligible for G7. What you want is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but for that you also need an argument that the subject's notability is only borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the G7 request, as this editor pointed out, it had not had too much editing to be eligible for G7 by anyone other than the creating editor. The editor who posted that comment - the only one commenting other than the proposing editor, wrote: "this looks like a relatively straight forward WP:G7 to me, rather than a WP:BLPSELF? Article has a bit of history, but if you strip out the AfC accept and the ping-pong over blanking, this is the only substantial editor." This is just an issue of it being properly posted, getting proper support for G7, but sitting waiting for action. I would urge deletion." 2603:7000:2143:8500:C5CE:2DC3:2A6C:8159 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets several categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cyberman. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mondas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to in-universe summaries and contextual mentions in relation to other plot elements. TTN (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cyberman, fails GNG. SK2242 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cyberman - The only sources being used in the article are pieces of fiction. Searching for additional sources turns up a few mentions here and there in the context of plot descriptions for Dr. Who products, but nothing particularly in-depth. As a reasonable target exists, though, Redirecting seems like the most appropriate course of action. Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Cyberman. No evidence of stand-alone notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Cyberman. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete at this time. With that said and as per usual, no prejudice towards recreation should notability be clearly established per WP:NBLP or similar, more relevant, guidelines as backed up by reliable sources. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:58, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Barclay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Zero significant roles in notable films. Fails WP:NACTOR, and does not meet WP:GNG either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She has had roles in NYPD Blue (the new series), In Darkness, Defending the Guilty and so on. I am in the process of adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stui (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just having roles does not add up to being notable. She lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. She is not a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG and NACTOR. SK2242 (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added some references. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For now I’m not seeing a notable acting career. The media (tabloid fodder more like) she does receive is more focused on her being related to a billionaire. Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade (digital marketing agency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company, substantially identical to declined draft Draft:Comrade (company). Contested WP:PROD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG and no explanation by IP while contesting prod, nor any subsequent effort to improve the article. SK2242 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet the current Notability WP:N requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also does not pass WP:NCORP. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails NCORP.-KH-1 (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like they are just marketing themselves. Not enough good independent sources. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Donaldd23 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raat (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help this pass WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom, fails NFILM and GNG. SK2242 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep so the AfD can be withdrawn. SK2242 (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The two book sources added in the article by Shshshsh (Ref #1, Ref #4) give significant critical commentary on the film. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - books cited prior to this nomination. An unjustified nomination, and I do not understand how WP:BEFORE was met really. Just a quick Google search yields many results in reliable sources, books and even scholarly journals. I'm not referring specifically to the nominator, but I can't get this habit of massively deleting Indian films, even those which are clearly notable. This systematic bias is really bad for Wikipedia. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above comments. @Shshshsh: I also have a major issue with how English Wikipedia is handeling its Indian films right now, its seems hugely ignorant for a bunch of monolingual English speakers to decide that articles should be deleted just because they personally can't find sources in another language from one single google search. I think some larger action against this needs to be done as well as a review of a lot of the recent deletions of Indian films.★Trekker (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - several more sources added, including books and scholarly journals, as well as a film review published at the time of release. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's really strange how this film (and so the article) can ever be considered 'non-notable.' Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn due to improvements. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldd23: The discussion can't be closed as 'withdrawn' unless SK2242 withdraws his delete !vote. --Mhhossein ^talk 03:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SK2242 (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramón Núñez-Juárez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Another private first class who recieved the Navy Cross and went MIA. Non-notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello �� contribs} 14:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another article that does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Really? He does not meet the inclusion criteria for soldiers? He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross, second highest military award of the United States of America after the Medal of Honor, that's all. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Navy Cross doesn't satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER. There are 7,565 Americans unaccounted for from the Korean War, don't see what makes him notable. Mztourist (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It totally wrong that a soldier must be awarded more then one Navy Cross to be notable. Who came up with that idea? The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is related discussion about this nomination here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#Nomination_of_Jorge_Otero_Barreto_for_deletion Mercy11 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, which in this case you specifically named in my "talk" page "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. 270 Navy Crosses were awarded during the Korean War, we don't have a page for every recipient. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A nomination using the WP:NSOLDIER essay as a delete criteria? Since when do we make delete decisions based on an WP:SPS as non-notable as a WP essay? What is a WP essay if it isn't a piece of writing expressing an editor's personal POV with no oversight by a notable editorial board of SMEs nor peer-reviewed by experts qualified in the branch on knowledge in question? I frown upon arguments made based on WP essays as if they were anything more than someone's desperate attempt to make his/her views known at WP after failing to get his/her ideas approved by the community at large and after failing to get those ideas into one of WP's [{WP:PG]]. Mercy11 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarize yourself with the criteria used in assessing Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mztourist: rather than insulting editors' intelligence or reading ability, you should have already stepped aside and allow the nomination to run its course rather than jumping in everytime an editor makes a comment you don't like. Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mercy11 the insults were against those who developed and apply WP:SOLDIER and you decided to paste an irrelevant Talk Page discussion on multiple pages. Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found no coverage indicative of GNG in a search. We don't consider every hero who received the Navy cross to meet ANYBIO-- a broader discussion would be needed to change that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Romero-Nieves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A private first class who received the Navy Cross. Not-notable. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unbelievably, this was actually AFDed before with the result being delete, but no one deleted it. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was deleted after the AFD, but it was subsequently recreated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a single award of the Navy Cross is inadequate under WP:SOLDIER, and coverage in reliable sources is zilch. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Energy Stability criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three domain stability of a non-conservative system. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]