Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 December 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 30	December 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fields

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; he’s only had one significant role as Daniel in Anna (1987 film). Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has enough sources to show notability for an article.--Blurz (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He clearly has enough TV and stage appearances to establish some degree of Notability. Including two appearances on Miami Vice and two appearances on Law and Order. He has a total of 31 acting credits between 1958 and 2002, according to IMDB [[1]]. While his film appearances are sporadic he did appear in the cult classic film The Blob (1958) - which is at least mildly notable, particularly when stacked up with the rest of his fairly constant TV career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJS ml343x (talk • contribs) 02:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many notable films to passes N:ACTOR and GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Dingley

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

I understand what a sensitive subject this is, and I do hope for the her safe return and I am keeping the family in my thoughts.

I have nominated this article due to WP:ONEEVENT.

Thank you everyone for your contributions and understanding. Missvain (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in the event that this is kept, it might be worth considering a move to a title like 'Disappearance of Esther Dingley' Spiderone 22:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too early. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Disappearance of Esther Dingley" per WP:ONEEVENT. The disappearance was widely covered by RS and Dingley was not notable prior to the event.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 01:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely WP:ONEEVENT - only coverage of subject exists in reference to her disappearance. We would rename/move the page only "in the event" (pun intended) that the event itself is notable per WP:EVENTCRIT. It's way too soon to ave any idea about the event's lasting notability. Per event crit. 2, events are likely notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. There's a weak claim to this because of coverage in the New York Times in addition to UK coverage, but that doesn't cut it IMO. HOWEVER, I think we should delay any decision on the notability of the event (and thus the feasibility of the move) per WP:RAPID as it is impossible to know the events lasting impact at this time. Samsmachado (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. ONEEVENT doesn't really apply, as it would imply the disappearance is notable and should be kept. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I saw this in my news feed the other day. We're in danger of getting into missing white woman syndrome here. There's no article on Garland English, who went missing after falling off a volcano, or 400 missing Black women from Atlanta. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaib Khan

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

This was previously deleted via AfD but this version is about a different person. However, I don't see how the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NACTOR. Sources provided are promotional in nature and I am unable to find significant discussion of the actor in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 21:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 21:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough to show WP:NACTOR is met, sources are meh at best, interviews don't help with notability. Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG. Could have been G5'd since it was created by a sock of Bttowadch.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagam Bhag (1956 film)

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up brief plot summaries 1 2 3, and what looks like the press pack, but nothing RS. A search for the Hindi title भागम भाग fared no better. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to stop being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 23:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aangan (1959 film)

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb and a listings site (neither WP:RS) since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up the plot (from I would wager is the press pack, "We invite you to hear this"). The listing at BFI is empty. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mere directory listings do not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 23:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have recorded at PatchWerk Recording Studios

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

For the same reasons as List of artists who have performed at the Colston Hall; WP:RAWDATA and WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not a directory of every band or singer that has recorded at any particular studio. I respect the effort that has gone into this list but it clearly has no place in an encyclopaedia. There is no evidence that recording at this particular studio is a hugely notable distinction in the field of music that would warrant such an article. Many artists have recorded here. Some of them are notable. Some of them are completely not notable. It clearly isn't that much of an exclusive club. Spiderone 20:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A list of indiscriminate data grouping people together for a reason that is not notable. Also, the article is dependent on a defunct website about the studio, which probably has a simple list of everybody who ever walked in the door. If a list is found there, Wikipedia does not need to repeat the list without any further discussion or analysis. If any famous people created history while at this studio, the stories can be added to the main article at PatchWerk Recording Studios. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom . A list of meaninless data , with No significant point Samat lib (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is not necessary and there is only one source.--Blurz (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bolger

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

Article reads as self promoting and does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards of notable people; academic or otherwise KnIsPow (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth coverage specifically about the subject in Harvard Crimson (2003), The Chronicle of Higher Education (2008), U.S. News & World Report (2010 and 2014) shows both enough sourcing for WP:GNG and ongoing interest in his story. His behavior may be self-promoting; that doesn't mean that we can't have an article about it or that the article itself is. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PS the sourcing of the article as nominated was in sad shape, although all of the sources mentioned above did appear in some (perhaps unrecognizable) form. I've cleaned it up to the point where I think all sources are now adequately reliable for a BLP and adequately well formatted. I also added another major-newspaper story, in the Philadelphia Inquirer (2008). It is still not the case that all claims in the article are adequately sourced (although probably some of the sources can be reused for the unsourced claims) so more improvement remains to be done. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Written about in adequate depth for an adequate duration of time. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject. I agree with David Eppstein’s comment regarding possibly self-promotional behavior by the subject (it’s not a reason in and of itself to delete). Elms^super 06:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Please clean up and improve and then proceed from there. Thanks! Missvain (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Edwards (artist)

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Also, notability is not inherited. KidAd talk 18:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neera Tanden. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, New York, and the collection of the Carnegie Museum. Meets WP:NARTIST. I also added two reviews from the New York Times, and a glowing review by Jerry Saltz that appeared in the Village Voice.Possibly (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is in two notable museum collections, therefore meets the criteria for WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable wife and notable enough for museum collections. 2600:1700:1240:BDC0:E93A:69EE:487A:19AE (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) — 2600:1700:1240:BDC0:E93A:69EE:487A:19AE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perfect example of WP:NOTINHERITED. KidAd talk 17:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: That is absolutely true of the IP's !vote. But this AfD should be withdrawn as the artist clearly meetsWP:NARTIST part 4.d. as well as GNG. Please have a look at that. Possibly (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, in addition to carnegie and moma, is held by Orlando Museum of Art (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as article is improved. Needs more sources and citations. Dr42 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not article cleanup. If the subject is determined to be notable through conducting a WP:BEFORE search then the article should not be deleted. If you want the article improved then improve it. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MoMA's enough to establish notability for me. The rest is just gravy. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NARTIST. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable enough to pass WP:NARTIST, on top of the fact of having a notable spouse - 2600:1700:E770:8520:8946:D564:CC48:D915 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC) — 2600:1700:E770:8520:8946:D564:CC48:D915 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's exactly what the other IP said above... Possibly (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Someone should probably do a sockpuppet investigation on these comments. LOL Missvain (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vahagn Stepanyan

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

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

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

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

The article is basically that he has "collaborated with" many well-known artists, but in and of itself does not show how he is notable. I am unable to find significant discussion of the artist in multiple reliable sources. I also had to trim a bunch of promotional content. ... discospinster _talk 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He collaborates with world-famous musicians and has released albums--Ապատ63 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)— Ապատ63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think his vast collaboration with many eminent musicians and the number of albums he is engaged in is worth for keeping this article.--Poghosyan97 (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)— Poghosyan97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I am for keeping — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna1894 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC) — Anna1894 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - all of the keep arguments so far are a complete contradiction of WP:NOTINHERITED. If this individual cannot be sourced to anything other than Spotify, YouTube and primary sources like Stepanyan Studios then he does not warrant inclusion. Spiderone 19:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is notable becauase of his collaboration with well-known artists and a number of his own albums released, also because of the vast number of studios he is currently endorsed by.--XenonX88 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a famous artist and has appeares on many projects as as a music producer, songwriter, composer etc. and has collaborated with artists from different countries․ I think the article needs to be keeped. Vopyan (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)— Vopyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability , No significant coverege on independent relieble sources reliable sources , most of the sources provided are , spotify, youtube, and is own page , article fail Wikipedia Notability , nothing to talk about .Samat lib (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Samat lib. No evidence of notability, indeed. And I think this should be closed as quick as possible, since the swarm of sockpuppets are already active. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Houghton

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

No WP:SIGCOV in independent sources, article is entirely promotional. All of the sources used in the article are connected with the subject. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Persons seems notable. Article can be improved in the draftspace.Shahoodu (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:MUSICBIO. Draftify if the consensus is that more work is needed beyond normal editing processes. There's plenty of evidence online that she is notable: 121,000 followers on Facebook and 85,300 on Twitter; toured nationally; myriads of downloads. The sketchy sourcing is the issue. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above. Sourcing really needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unspectrogram (talk • contribs) 07:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without finding RS that cover the topic, the above "Keep" !votes have a highly flawed rationale. See WP:INHERENTWEB: followers ≠ notability. (t · c) buidhe 18:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no issue with notability, and the article has enough referenced support to clear that bar for me. I also don't understand why the nominator deleted a paragraph after the listing for AfD - I'd have preferred to have the community judge the article as it was, even if something was found to be wrong with that paragraph.--Concertmusic (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is very promotional material, even with an editor having been through and deleted some of the content. This article needs to be deleted as it seems beyond rescue and if the article is to be created, it should be re-written in draftspace. I would even go as far to say this is WP:PAID, looking at the citations and language used, as well as the major contributors being new editors or unregistered users. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would, however, support a revert to this version, as this was the version kept after the previous AfD. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional material. Kolma8 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . all but promo Samat lib (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution. Missvain (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine

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

Third time for creating this article under two different pagenames by the same user, who also had tried to nominate it for ITN. Still no insufficient non-local sources that would indicate this is a notable event. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine —valereee (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment as the first two times were months ago (When they drafted the article). Nominated for ITN wrongfully. The articles have been submitted and are an official House Resolution. They are expecting a vote. (Also the same as Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer.) Elijahandskip (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the other article exists doesn't have any bearing on whether or not this article should have its third deletion discussion. —valereee (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Insufficient non-local sources. Currently, the article has a source from Fox News, ABC News, NBC News, The Hill, CNN, CBS and Ohio.gov. All considered “non-local”.

Adding on, Washington Post did an article. Now listed as a source. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution is where we should cover this impeachment. It is not worthy of a stand-alone page. GNG/notability isn't as important an issue for me as the issue that this is not worthy of a spinoff because it is better covered in a paragraph at Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution, where the reader will be better served by reading about the impeachment in the context of the biography of the politician being impeached. I wouldn't even think the redirect was worth having; people looking for this information will type in "Mike DeWine" not "impeachment resolution against...". Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support speedy close as merge. While I don't think leaving a redirect is necessary, redirects are cheap and if I felt real strong about it I could take the redirect to RFD. But it seems the most efficient thing to do if everyone is in agreement is to just merge now, rather than spending a week at AFD. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will begin merging information over. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge into Mike_DeWine#Impeachment_resolution. Certainly worth covering, but probably does not merit its own article per WP:NOPAGE. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 16:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered adequately at Mike DeWine, not notable enough for a standalone article. I agree with Levivich that a redirect is unnecessary.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but Merge would be reasonable also. I'm not sure this article is longer than the section at DeWine. Or is there an article about US political nuttiness during COVID/elections? Both this and the Whitmer article could be merged there. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the nominator I think your delete vote is counted already?-- P-K3 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pawnkingthree, I just wanted to affirm that a merge would be fine with me...how's a better way? Thanks for any advice. :) —valereee (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, you could put an update under your opening rationale. But no big deal:)-- P-K3 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Creator) I do not oppose a merge. The original Afd reasons have been solved, so a merge is ok. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elijahandskip, works for me. I've been wondering about this issue and the similar one surrounding Whitmer, and other similar moves. I think there may be an eventual list in something like List of US state legislative bodies' reactions to COVID management by governors. Still not something anyone is going to search for, but a google search on 'state legislators COVID' pulls up a ton of stuff. Probably synth at this point for an article, but you could probably start a draft in user space. Just don't rush it into article space! No deadlines! :) FWIW, I've got drafts in my own userspace that have been there for years waiting to see if the subject actually becomes appropriate for an article. —valereee (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close for a mergeValereee , Pawnkingthree, Twassman, and Levivich, all the information from the article has been moved too Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution. We have a clear consensus to merge, so can we agree to do a speedy close as a merge? Elijahandskip (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support speedy merge. Elijahandskip, sounds good to me. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 19:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete Materialscientist (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jinam Series

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack of WP:RS and WP:NOTSOURCE. The article is more of WP:PROMOTION only — Amkgp 💬 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Amkgp 💬 10:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and G11 The article does not demonstrate which this company is significant, let alone notable, and the text of the article is promotional; the team section is literally written in the first person. Also, none of the listed sources are reliable, one of them is a link to a deleted Wikipedia article, the second one is a link to some sort of self-published biography, the third one doesn't even mention this company, and the fourth is a Wikipedia mirror. Sources 2 and 3 are misleading; source 2's name is "Indian Film Director Abhishek Kapdi Founder Of New Producion Company", while the source doesn't even mention the company, it only has basic info about the founder. Edit: If I recall correctly, the second source was Crunchbase, which was deprecated. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 15:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Lord Grandwell (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and especially per JJP... MASTER!. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Radiator

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

Non-notable band GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short-lived (2006-2010) American progressive rock band. They released an album and an EP during their short lifespan. Typical of short-lived, underground bands like this one, all I found about them are the usual streaming links, download sites, lyrics sites, databases, youtube videos and retail sites. The usual no-use trash, in other words. The Allmusic page is blank, and the album review page is blank as well, only containing user reviews which does not contribute to notability. No evidence of notable members. Their label has its own article so that might qualify as a notable/important label, but I don't know and it is not enough to save the article imo. And the sourcing in the article is dreadful as well, might I add - the official tumblr site of the record company and lastfm. So anyways, I haven't found anything reliable about this band. They were most likely underground or simply made no impact on the music industry so they quickly faded out, I mean split up. Not notable. COI also applies, as the user only edited this article and the associated record label (so I suppose the label isn't too notable either). Update Turns out the creator of this article did not create the Emerald Moon Records article, that was created way back in 2006 by someone else who is not a COI editor. I still nominated that for Afd as well, because I did not find any RS about them: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald Moon Records GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the nomination and the analysis of sources provided. There's nothing in the article to support a claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO and per everything the nominator said. (It doesn't help that the creator created the article in November 2013 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Oiaka

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

I don't believe that he has held a position in either rugby union or football to be inherently notable (rugby editors, please correct me if I am wrong). This appears to fall short on the more general criteria at WP:BASIC. This could have been a PROD but I would appreciate a second opinion on whether a position like SIRUF CEO would guarantee him notability even in the absence of significant coverage.

NZ Herald - passing mention - complaining about his performance
ProQuest search - no in-depth coverage
Solomon Star News - brief article where he makes a comment about a 7s tournament
Fiji Sun - mentioned once
Sports Media Solomon Islands - he is quoted here but, again, the source doesn't go into enough depth about him as an individual
Sports Media Solomon Islands - as above really
Oceania Football - passing mention, it doesn't appear that his football career ever gets any real coverage Spiderone 10:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty certain he's not notable under WP:NRU as Solomon Islands' aren't a High Performance Union, not enough significant coverage for WP:GNG either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not enough sources for notability.--Blurz (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football referee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral expansion

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

Page has had no sources since 2006. A simple Google Search eliminating Wikipedia sources received zero results relating to economics. Seloloving (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Seloloving (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this is a frustrating term to look for, because it gets shadowed by all the other uses of this terminology; however, a Google Books search does turn up a number of clear definitions. Here's one that lays it out quite clearly. It's a thing, just needs a few of these sources added. The counterpart "vertical expansion" is covered at Vertical_integration#Vertical_expansion (although that's a completely unsourced section as well...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, I have failed my due diligence in this case. I would recommend for keep having seen the Google Books results, though I do wonder if the topic should be merged into an existing article instead. Seloloving (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources.--Blurz (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude... please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Montagnese

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

only one reference, doesn't pass GNG, written like a resumé –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 08:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 08:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. –Aaronw1109 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 08:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one source given. Not enough to show notability.--Blurz (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Weak piece of WP:PROMO material better suited for a website or Twitter bio. KidAd talk 06:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Jehan Mir

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

Fails GNG, WP:NPOL. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" He was, briefly, the CARETAKER governor of a province? Other than this scant - and insufficient - claim, no notability whatsoever. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - Curious to hear others views on this, In a Google news and general Google check I could see several sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. I'm still learning on Wikipedia so any more experienced editors viewpoints would be helpful. --Pulisi (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Mir Afzal was made in 2013 and is even more bare in terms of both article length and refs so if Sher Jehan Mir gets deleted I'd give that a look. --Pulisi (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:POLITICIAN: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. He served as the chief minister of a Pakistani province; even if we go by the argument that he was a caretaker, it's important to note that the constitution provides for a caretaker officeholder. Mar4d (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chief Minister (whether caretaker or not) of a province in Pakistan is notable; passes WP:POLITICIAN.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN and is a notable person. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mar4d and Ngrewal1.VR _talk 04:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A person who had only been a "caretaker" provincial governor for one or two days might potentially fall below the bar, but a person who held that role for more than six months was clearly more than a historical footnote, because he very clearly held the role for a significant and meaningful amount of time. Yes, the article needs some improvement, so by all means tag it for {{refimprove}}, but the role clearly satisfies WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Vinícius dos Santos Rosa

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

Article about footballer who has only played semi-professionally except for a 10-minute appearance in the K. League. There is no online Portuguese-language coverage of this footballer other than database entries, match reports and transfer announcements (and nothing at all which would be in-depth coverage). Although having played in a few minutes in a fully-pro league match creates a presumption of notability under WP:NFOOTBALL, there is a long-standing consensus that when an article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this does, the presumption isn't valid. Jogurney (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, which is far more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources to justify an article on someone that has played 10 mins of professional sport Spiderone 21:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not enough sources to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale by Johnpacklambert & Spiderone. Furthermore a before search doesn’t show hits with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to have a complete set of articles here for WP:NFOOTBALL than maintain a complete set on another site and a separate incomplete set here. Subject-specific guidelines are more important than WP:GNG as a reason to delete an article, there's no reason to say they shouldn't be as a reason to keep an article. Peter James (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Johnson (pilot)

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

No claim of notability. Does not meet WP:NMIL or WP:GNG. DFC is not a high order award. Being related to a notable person does not confer notability. MB 03:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MB 03:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MB 03:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and has no notability as its WP:NOTINHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- WP:SOLDIER says "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." Here are some sources: 1, 2, 3. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTINHERITED. We can merge all the necessary content to Boris Johnson. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really significant on his own level; a cursory mention in the current Prime Minister's article should be sufficient at best. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER . No credible claim to notability. Being the grandfather of someone who became prime minister confers no notability per WP:NOTINHERITED.. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This would make an interesting article if it had more sources than just two sources but otherwise it is not notable.--Blurz (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first reference look dubious. BlueD954 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Identities

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

Tagged for 10 years for lack-of-notability. I don't see enough to merit an article. The claims here are mainly non-notable festivals and non-notable individuals who are also associated with other non-notable bands. WP:TOOSOON? DMacks (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know if TOOSOON applies here, since they've been active since 2006 and that is quite a long time ago. But they are not notable. Haven't found anything during a search that even slightly contributes to notability. The sourcing in the article is horrible, only containing external links. No evidence of notable members or labels. Just because they've toured with notable bands and their songs have appeared in notable video games and a notable TV show, does not make them notable. So yeah - they are NN. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of no broad significance outside their niche. Would have a place on a specialist Fandom site, but not this one. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above comments. Essentially they do not seem to have ever recieved the level of coverage or achieved the kind of notably that would be expected if they were to have an article here. Dunarc (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus T Grant

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

Beyond the clear COIs editing this article, Grant has been tagged for notability issues since 2010. All of the references given are barely a passing mention and he clearly fails GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomJackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 03:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable by any Wikipedia standards. Has been in CAT:NN for a decade now, it's clear Grant is not notable. And the WP:BEFORE search I ran turned up hardly anything, and even the results that turned up did not seem to refer to this Grant. And there's nothing that'd help establish notability: zero significant coverage. Java Hurricane 03:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of Notability Samat lib (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual in the music business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Welfare Organization, Pahalgam

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

Doesn't seems to be a notable organization. There are so many passing mentions in local newspapers with questionable reliability but I can't see anything that meets WP:ORGDEPTH and most of the cited sources doesn't mention the subject at all. GSS ^💬 17:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was no consensus. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2015-03 no consensus

Logs: 2015-03 move to → Draft:Himalayan Welfare Organization, Pahalgam

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources fail to establish notability; RS barely mention the subject Spiderone 11:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources cited in the article are, admittedly, not great. But whether there are not sufficiently reliable is a closer call, IMHO. From the ones I looked at, they certainly didn't seem unreliable. They're not, say, the New York Times or some other large media outlet. But they seem relatively reliable and there's a non-trivial number of them. So, I'd weakly support keeping the article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said above the sources aren't amazing. That alone isn't enough to damn the article. It's pretty well written and talks about something that IS notable. BJackJS talk 18:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BJackJS: Can you point out a single source that establish notability under WP:CORP? GSS ^💬 19:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:ORG WP:INDEPENDANT a large part of decisions for notability. As can be seen with these sources, there isn't any interest for these news sources to publish things about the organization. BJackJS talk 19:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean? the first paragraph at WP:ORGCRITE state that A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. so I'm asking for source(s) that satisfy one of notability criteria at WP:ORG. GSS ^💬 19:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the "news sources" (journalists) don't have any interest in publishing about the subject, that's a good indication it isn't notable. So with that being said, delete. Praxidicae (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organization with no real indepth coverage. I think the organization in question does not warrant a stand alone article on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 12:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Missvain (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incision (film)

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

Non-notable film, coverage is mainly from blogs sharing the trailer, has not been covered significantly, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 21:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-10 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I think this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but it's been three weeks since the movie's release, and besides the generic trailer coverage from various blogs noted in the nomination, I see only one mention of it online in an independent, reliable (I'm assuming) source: this short review from FilmThreat on November 19. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. As others have noted, there does not appear to be any meaningful coverage of this film such that it fails the notability guidelines. DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medica

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Non notable organization lacking sufficient reliable sources. --Spicypumpkin (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added information regarding the company's stock market listing and a recent acquisition, but these and the existing sources fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches returned surprisingly little about the firm, beyond some coverage on small-investor sites. Happy to revise my opinion if someone does identify detailed coverage but as it stands this seems to be a WP:NCORP failure. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Hasn't been improved in a long time. Not worth keeping up. Prolix 💬 16:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foye Ikyaator

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

Fails GNG, arguably A7, G11 - overly promotional article about non-notable proprietor of commercial business stood up on PR Newswire and puffy trade magazine pieces. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a way too promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional bio of a subject lacking notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is extremely promotional, and it is sourced entirely to promotional puff pieces. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Library (Seinfeld)

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

This article has been tagged for being WP:PLOTONLY since 2013. Looking it up, there's no coverage on the episode what so ever. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Through a Google search I found a review by the AV Club and an article in The Week which discusses the episode. There are also sources which discuss the creation and reception of the character Lt. Bookman from the episode (UPROXX, Interview [[2]], Interview 2, New York Public Library tumblr). These are not enough to pass GNG on their own (some are interviews, primary, trivial, etc.), however taken together I think there is enough to pass the minimum standard for GNG. This is also not taking into account any print sources or sources from when the episode originally aired that I don't have access to (in particular reviews from when the episode aired). I'm interested if there are any users who would know of such sources; I think it is logical to think they exist. GNG is not determined by the current article quality, but by the existence of sources. Rhino131 (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the sources found by Rhino131 above. In addition I found a page of analysis of the themes of the episode in this book [3]. While not the finest of sourcing available I think there is just enough there to pass GNG. Someone with newspapers.com access may be able to find some contemporary coverage. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good find with the book source, it's actually the best of all the sources because it's secondary and contains real analysis of the episode. Rhino131 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't heard of The Week but a review and interview from The AV Club and other articles/interviews from Uproxx and especially Rolling Stone would be enough to establish GNG even without The Week & NY Public Library's Tumblr. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reviews don't actually mean an episode is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. There's no production information, meaning that a reader looking for actual information on the topic would only get a plot, a few reviews, and that's it. Because of this, this article should be deleted, as it's information brings no value to a reader. Additionally, a more convenient plot for the episode can be found at Seinfeld_(season_3)#Episodes, and as reviews don't actually show notability, this article should be deleted. See also, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Articles_for_every_episode. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that discussion, but that should first be completed and the standards explicitly stated, then we can start deleting episodes that don't meet the standard. "Reviews don't show notability" is currently your opinion; get the community to agree and write a policy. Until then all these AFD's should be closed. Rhino131 (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided above are fine for establishing GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina's assertion that "reviews don't show notability" contradicts existing guidelines (WP:NFILM). — Toughpigs (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it does not matter what rubbish WikiProject Television comes up with, it will ultimately have no effect since decisions made in projectspace do not override the core policy that is GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherly derby

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

Unnecessary at the first place. Albania and Kosovo share a fairly friendly if not saying brotherly relations, so why should they hate each other to a point drafting a derby/rivalry here? It is like saying the football derby between Greece and Cyprus/Poland and Hungary need to have rivalries, which it is extremely useless. Football rivalries in most part only come to mention when it appears to have a lot of historical bad blood between clubs or between nations, as well as desire to compete. Albania and Kosovo's rivalry do not qualify to be an article. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to see what the sources say since many of them aren't in English, but if the media covers this match as the "Brotherly derby" significantly then we can have an article on it. I'm not seeing much in English apart from one article from two weeks ago, and the name is used for other derbies as well. SportingFlyer T·C 09:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question how sufficient it is. Typically, Albanians are known for hyping themselves. The fact that Albania and Kosovo share a healthy relationship mean it is extremely uncanny. These sources have never managed to impress us in the first place. There is plenty of similar friendly derbies like that, such as Poland–Hungary, Greece–Cyprus, for examples. And it has never been taken as articles because it is too friendly to be mentioned as a derby. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Albania and Kosovo compete to field diaspora players anyway. Geschichte (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appears to be sufficient coverage of the topic. Giant Snowman 11:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most important derbies in the world have come from the root of frauds, historical hostilities, and tendency of competitiveness, which is quite usual like the case of Brazil–Argentina (desire to compete and rare, historical rivalry), Belgium–Netherlands (desire to compete) or Iran–Saudi Arabia (religious sectarianism). We rarely see any rivalries that have been based on a "friendly" manner, cases like Greece–Cyprus or Poland–Hungary are few. And they have never been considered seriously, because it is too friendly, no one writes it. If I were you, I would regret your decision of trying to keep this useless. If you really want to keep it, I think you should write the similar rivalries like that between Greece–Cyprus and Poland–Hungary. Maybe it helps your soul. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've taken the time to translate articles such as [4] and think this passes WP:GNG, though not in English sources. Also there's no need to write other similar rivalries unless they have been written about and pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For some reasons like:

1. This derby, in addition to having a brotherly character, also has a competitive character because both teams are in competition which of them is quality team with positive results and which is the first to qualify in Europian Championship or World Cup.

2. This derby has cases where it has created various incidents between the two federations and between the two fans groups over the issue of which team should get the quality player who plays in the Albanian diaspora.

3. The arrival of players from Albania to Kosovo and from Kosovo to Albania until 2016 are called exchanges because Kosovo has not been a member of UEFA and FIFA, after membership these arrivals were called acts of betrayal as two concrete cases when Amir Rrahmani, Milot Rashica and some other players who were part of Albania joined Kosovo in sign of revenge for not included in the Albania's Euro 2016 players list,^[1] while there is another case where Ardian Ismajli and Kastriot Dermaku who were part of Kosovo joined Albania in sign of revange for not entering in the starting lineup. Both of these cases have been called acts of betrayal by the fans of both teams.

4. We also have the case when the Albanian Football Association blocked the documents of Loret Sadiku, which made it impossible for him to come to Kosovo national team and is accused by the player of forging from Albanian Football Association a signature who allegedly for rejection of Kosovo and join with Albania.^[2]

5. These two teams have had three qualifying matches, two within the U21 Championship qualifiers, which has caused several incidents between the players around the goal celebrations and one within the Women's World Cup qualifiers where there was an incident about a goal from Kosovo which according to Albania was an offside position.

6. Before making this decision, you should read about these two teams (states) and after a week, the draw for the qualifiers of the "Qatar 2022" World Cup is expected to be divided, where these two teams are expected to be in the same group.

7. For this derby, RSSSF (an international organization dedicated to collecting statistics about association football) has dedicated a special article: Derbi vëllazëror. ManiacOfSport (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per arguments made above. Krelana (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not uncommon for notable rivalries to exist despite strong positive relations between the entities represented. This is true both on an international level (see England-Scotland football rivalry) and within nations (see Army-Navy game). As no valid reason has been specified for deletion, default to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NRIVALRY; there is currently no requirement for the rivalry to be a bitter one; it simply needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources which this has Spiderone 22:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Andi Bushati. "Milot Rashica, një tradhtar i mërzitur" [Milot Rashica, an upset traitor]. Ekonomia Online (in Albanian). Retrieved 1 December 2020.
^ "Loret Sadiku padit FSHF-n në FIFA!" [Loret Sadiku sues AFA in FIFA!]. Gazeta Blic (in Albanian). Retrieved 1 December 2020.

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

[1] Andi Bushati. "Milot Rashica, një tradhtar i mërzitur" [Milot Rashica, an upset traitor]. Ekonomia Online (in Albanian). Retrieved 1 December 2020.

[2] "Loret Sadiku padit FSHF-n në FIFA!" [Loret Sadiku sues AFA in FIFA!]. Gazeta Blic (in Albanian). Retrieved 1 December 2020.

[1]

[2]