Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 14

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DocumentError (talk | contribs) at 07:51, 14 November 2020 (Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Soccer Manager.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:51, 14 November 2020 by DocumentError (talk | contribs) (Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Soccer Manager.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 15 (Wed) January 14 (Tue) January 13 (Mon) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< November 13	November 15 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ultimate Soccer Manager

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources DocumentError (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep this was one of the most famous soccer management games of the 1990s - let me see what I can do to save this. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

All I've found online so far is this review, a mention in a Dutch book on video games, a Stuff list saying it was the 25th best soccer video game of all time and two newspaper clippings showing it was in the top 10 best-selling video games in Australia in 1997, for I think a week. However the internet won't be the best place for searching for notability as this was a 90s game that I'm certain would have been reviewed in other major sources similar to the Independent. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

SportingFlyer the problem is that this article is not about one game, but the whole series. It mistakenly calls new games as "versions", which isn't true. First ref is just about the last game, Stuff is about the first game, etc. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment This content can be encyclopedic if could cite more indepent source, i think there are some reference out there on GnewsLynndonald (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment Ultimate Soccer Manager 98 (DSF Fussball Manager 98 in Germany) is absolutely notable, finding at least 4 reviews for it , (mentioned above), , , but the series as whole (what this article is about) was never covered and thus not notable per WP:GNG, so I am leaning to delete here. If needed, any entry could have its own Misplaced Pages article separately. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jovanmilic97: I'm still a keep - I'm sure you'd find reviews for the earlier games if you look in the right spots, and we also group games together by series when they're not individually notable enough for their own article: see Front Page Sports Football. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Draftify I found a review of the original title, it's hard to believe there aren't more out there. People who are better at finding sources should at least be given some months to do just that._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Draftify - I think that is the best option. It was always going to be difficult to find online sources for this game. Draftifying would at least give someone the chance to find offline sources should they wish to. Spiderone 21:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Draftifying doesn't make sense. This article has been on the website since 2004, only six years after the last edition of the game. Draftifying works best with articles that are WP:TOOSOON that will be notable soon, or newly created articles that were moved into mainspace too quickly, where there's an author willing to work on them. Draftifying this will likely ensure its deletion, considering sources exist but are difficult to find. I've added two older magazine reviews to the article - a look at MobyGames shows there are more out there. SportingFlyer T·C 13:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. I think we all know that the topic is notable but proving it is a different matter. Might be one of those rare times when we should just WP:IGNOREALLRULES and keep it. Spiderone 16:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete while the individual games might be notable on their own, the series as a whole has not received coverage. This article can become a standalone article for the original game if enough sources (like reviews) are found for the game. I do not support draftify because I do not see how the series' notability will change in a few months. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We typically cover video game series as a whole without requiring them to be covered as a series. That's not a reason for deletion. See other examples, for instance Front Page Sports Football, World Basketball Manager, Out of the Park Baseball, Football Manager. There's also proof of sources existing in the form of reviews here, here, here, and here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I am still keeping my delete opinion because I don't think the other stuff exists argument is valid in this case. The notability of the series is in question for this AfD and I don't think there is enough coverage of the series to justify keeping the article as is. Also, Mobygames is considered unreliable on WP:VG/RS (this wikilink also lists reliable sources pertaining to video games.) Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You've misunderstood both of my arguments. I'm not saying this is notable because those are notable. I'm showing we frequently discuss video game series in one article, without requiring the entire series to be notable, as a way of consolidating articles. Also, I'm not saying this is notable because it has an article on Mobygames. I'm saying there are multiple reviews on the Mobygames page which can be used to show notability and develop the article further. SportingFlyer T·C 16:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third times the charm
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep. The Mobygames aggregator links above are sufficient—multiple major reviews for each game and when considered together, sufficient for an overview article. Instead of separate articles for each game, use this one to build sections in summary style. Draftify doesn't make sense in cases like this. Expert source searchers are not going to arbitrarily come out of the woodwork in the next several months. Ask a noticeboard and you'll get some bites, but otherwise drafifying rarely makes sense unless someone is explicitly asking to work on it in isolation. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 09:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep Great discussion. I would much prefer to keep and improve rather than delete. The arguments of czar and SportingFlyer carry the day in my mind.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep per above. Kolma8 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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 result was redirect to Delta Air Lines. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Regional Elite Airline Services

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

There was a PROD on this that was removed because it's "likely" notable. Going by the sources in the article though, all of which are primary or dead links, and the fact that I was unable to find multiple in-depth reliable sources about it in a WP:BEFORE it's notability is extremely unlikely. Maybe it could at least be redirected to Delta Air Lines. Although, it's not a likely search term. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to Delta Air Lines, possibly merging a small bit into that article mentioning the subsidiary. Redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Merge to Delta Air Lines, as a wotldwide operation sources would be likely offline if not online, deadlinks are not a reason for deletion as they can be fixed in most cases, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Dead links are only important in relation to saying if the article or subject of the article has in-depth reliable sources about it or not. Which can't be determined if the links are dead. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete. The topic isn’t notable and most of the sources are from the company’s defunct website or airport maps. The edit history has largely been promotional content and gripes about management. Delta is a large corporation of many former subsidiaries. The Delta article isn’t improved by jamming this content in there. Minnemeeples (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Surinder Mahey

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. He contested the 2017 election on an independent ticket but lost. Google search of him brings up sources that mention him in passing. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, both for the failed candidacy in Punjab, but also because Jalandhar is not a city of global influence, so municipal politician notability would not apply. Bkissin (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above; fails NPOL Spiderone 20:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Move to draft to see if additional sources bubble up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Fly Aeolus

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

Poorly sourced promo piece about a non-notable company; cannot find any proper RS references, fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep - the coverage in Flight Global alone establishes notability, plus the other refs. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Just for the record, the "other refs" consist of the company's own LinkedIn article, something that looks like an academic paper (Aeronautics and Astronautics) but has been written "in collaboration with" the company, a promo piece (Leonardo Times) written by the company's marketing department, and one short paragraph (BNR.nl) that just about mentions the company. The Flight Global article is the best of the lot, and even that is an interview with the company's founder. Hardly WP:INDY WP:RS WP:SIGCOV, IMHO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure - there is something to say for both sides. Flight Global is a well-respected authority, meseemeth, they will not offer free publicity to a soap bubble startup. Still there are precious few other references, and none really impressive. I must also say that, as a former regular visitor and follower of Antwerp Airport - witness my nickname! :) - I cannot remember hearing or seeing this operator ever mentioned. I think I would grant them the advantage of doubt, and let the article remain for now. But it does leave a lot of room for improvement. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Airlines and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Move to Draft namespace. I disagree with Ahunt that the reference in Flight alone makes this topic notable; WP:NOTABILITY requires multiple reliable sources. Misplaced Pages does not have articles on every business that somebody reliable once came across. At best this article is WP:TOOSOON. It is also very new. So my suggestion would be to follow the toosoon advice and move it to Draft:Fly Aeolus, where it can be given a decent chance to accumulate sufficient references. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for your feedback! I have added some sources that should be more credible. Please let me know how I can improve the article even more. Best regards (Talk) 15:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lea Struck (talk • contribs)

Move to Draft - Concur with Steelpillow. If this was a scheduled airline then it'd be notable, but it doesn't appear to be, so draft it until we can ~~construct additional pylons~~acquire additional refs to confirm notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Move to Draft - I also concur with Steelpillow. In draft the other issues can also be addressed, before release to mainspace.--Petebutt (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep - the author has added 4 additional secondary sources. Those appear to take care of RS concerns. This appears to be a perfectly legitimate going concern that is notable in its particular space of providing air taxi services.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Move to Draft as per Steelpillow. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. It does not appear that there was anything close to a consensus for deletion on the first two rounds of listing this, but on the third relisting the trend to keep is too clear to miss. BD2412 T 04:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Ventures

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

Non-notable media company. This article does not present a case for corporate notability, and a naïve Google search does not indicate that any obvious sources have been overlooked. The company exists, which we knew, and has this Misplaced Pages article. The article provides a very brief summary of what the company says about itself, and says nothing about what third parties say about the company. The article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, but they do not establish notability. 6 of the references are the company's own web site, and 2 are to the web site of an investing company. There is a history of the creation of promotional articles about the company. A draft has also been created and has been declined. The draft also does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Noncommittal comment. My intuition is that the corporate parent of CNET (see , , ) is probably notable, but it seems like the vast majority of coverage is in the context of that acquisition. Apparently it's been around since 2000, and was a marketing company as of 2016. If others don't turn up better sourcing, maybe redirect to CNET? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep WP:COMMONSENSE precedes all guidelines. All citation templates include the name of the publisher. If the website is notable (CNET), it just seems sensible that the citation should refer to a publisher that's notable too. — Ad Meliora ∕_Contribs 12:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to CNET would appear to be a commonsense and sensible solution. None of the references available meet our NCORP guidelines so a redirect as an alternative to deletion. HighKing 19:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep Certainly the article could use some fleshing out, but notability doesn't seem to be a concern given the list of products owned. The sourcing appears to be reliable, if not overly deep, but I don't see deletion as the solution.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep. The company owns numerous independently notable media properties (CNET, ZDNet, TV Guide, Metacritic, GameSpot, Chowhound etc) and just announced their acquisition of the world's largest travel publisher Lonely Planet. The company has independent coverage, such as this piece in Inc , and their acquisition spree in itself is notable and has been well covered in reputable sourced, eg. . Jpatokal (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete or ATD of Redirect to CNET: Fails NCORP and any form of GNG. At this time, and from what I see, I agree with the Nom about the low-quality sources (promotional) and lack of notability for a stand alone article. Long standing community practices are that notability is not inherited. Two of the "keep arguments above, such as, "given list of products owned", and "The company owns numerous independently notable media properties.", along with comments that Misplaced Pages become a news outlet with "their acquisition spree in itself is notable...", suggest that we now move in a new direction. If the parent company becomes notable in it's own right would be the time to publish a neutral article. == Otr500 (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Delete Not even close to being notable in its own right, not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep. This company has "a portfolio of over 100 news and information sites ... reaches over 300 million readers worldwide every month." I think it is goo enough to keep it on wikipedia, especially given the recent acquisitions of CNET and LP. Kolma8 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Keep - The company meets all the citeria for notability. Cite references include primary media coverge of the company by: The Wall Street Journal, Inc., The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety, Irish Times, Financial Times - showing notability. Davodd (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The references you cite fail WP:NCORP which are the guidelines to use for all organizations. HighKing 19:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep Do NOT redirect. Company is notable. This is a company with HQ based in U S. with offices in the U.S., Brazil, UK, China, Australia, etc. It has a portfolio of companies in digital marketing. Article has sufficient citations. SWP13 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Adam Road Medical Centre

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

Sources do not indicate importance as per WP:Notability, and I couldn't find any notable results on Google for this. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete: Media searches show various in-role quotes from an associated person, but these fall under the "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" at WP:CORPDEPTH, and my searches are not finding better. Happy to revise my opinion if better sources can be found, but as it stands this is fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete, exists but fails NCORP. I did find some mentions in news articles (, , , ) but these appear to be quoting psychiatrists who work at the centre, which doesn't constitute significant coverage. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete Simple brochure listing no pretensions to be encyclopedic. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep 18:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Riverview Tower

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Does not have coverage that meets significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and article makes no claim that there is historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. WP:BEFORE revealed advertising, WP:ROUTINE, WP:MILL coverage, and directory style listings. // Timothy :: talk 14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 04:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom. While it's a perfectly well-written article, it makes no claim of notability, and the building is clearly not notable under the relevant guidelines. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete per nom and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_skyscrapers. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. No coverage except simple mentions in Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema has been found. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Bolti Bulbul

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

I tried to remove the notability tag, which has been attached to the article since September 2018, but another editor restored it saying that the film isn't notable and needs to be left until it is proven to that editor.

There seems to be coverage, but I need a consensus that this film is notable so that, if kept, the tag can be removed without argument. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete A notability tag indicates the subject may not be notable and is there to encourage editors to locate additional coverage. It does not assert that the subject is not notable.

This film article currently has two sources cited. The Gomolo.com source does not mention this film, thus of no help to notability. Possibly there was coverage in Gomolo.com but the archive cited does not contain it. The other source, Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema, is a comprehensive film guide which, per the film notability guidelines, is not sufficient coverage. The coverage it contains is very minor. It is listed in the filmography of Desai Dhirubhai (page 83 ) consisting of "1942: Bolti Bulbul" and again mentioned in the section on Rathod Kanjibhai (page 197) saying he worked as production manager on this 1942 remake of his 1927 silent film of the same name.

The notability of a film is not based on the existing article sources. However, given the trivial coverage in the existing sources and the lack of any new sources identified in the before process it appears to fail WP:NFILM. I'm willing to go along with delete for now. Happy to reconsider if significant coverage in additional sources is discovered. Gab4gab (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nom doesn't seem to be !voting delete here, would benefit from additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 _Work 17:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 04:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete Gomolo.com appears to be a user-generated database site, which cannot be establish notability. Without any additional sources, I'm inclined to delete. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination by another (not blocked) user, per no input regarding the topic's notability from other users herein. North America 16:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Poru Telangana

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

Completely unsourced film. No notability established. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment Nominator has been indef-blocked per WP:UPE, see user's talk page for further discussion of the matter. --Finngall 15:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 _Work 18:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 04:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Biff Naylor

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

Borderline A7 eligible article for a subject that blatantly falls short of WP:BIO as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, is this where I defend my article https://en.wikipedia.org/Biff_Naylor Please forgive my poor coding skills, I'm sorta new at this. I made some changes and additions that I hope will address the concerns. @Celestina007

For a biographical article, the subject of the article must satisfy WP:BIO that is they must have been discussed with in-depth in reliable sources independent of them & the subject of your article doesn’t satisfy that. Celestina007 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Celestina007 Did you see the additions I made to the story - and additional sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixols (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Weak keep, content looks somewhat viable. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 04:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Strong keep. content is significant to California lifestyle and Googie architecture, as well as Restaurant industry importance. Accurately sourced.Intenseca (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Intenseca

This is the user's second ever edit after a 15-year hiatus. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Does your comment add to a thoughtful discussion? For a notable and honored figure in the hospitality industry, and for a major contributor to the unique and fascinating Southern California lifestyle, the article adds historical significance and well-sourced information to the Misplaced Pages service. The well composed article meets the standards and exacting, non-compromising values that are detailed on this site. Please re-read the first paragraph regarding commenting on other users. Thank you. Intenseca Intenseca (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It simply makes people wonder why a user made his/her second edit in a discussion. Geschichte (talk) 10:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Notable restaurateur. Cbl62 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep Coverage in San Jose Mercury-News, Los Angeles magazine, and Los Angeles Times appears to qualify for notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep - notable enough for inclusion per WP:GNG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Missvain (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Atlet AB

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

Entirely unsourced company page, fails to prove it's notability. Can't find anything significant about them after a quick search, so likely fails WP:NCORP. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Atlet has a long history as a major company within its niche. There was a source in the article – the book Atlet: 1958–2006 by Henrik Moberger, who has written several other books about Swedish companies, but it was self-published. However, plenty of non-trivial coverage about the company in Swedish newspapers (not available through a normal search, but through paywalled newspaper archives). I've added three. /Julle (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 04:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Julle made improvements, adding sourcing. Please also see a niche article about Atlet's exit of the North American market. There is enough here for me to see value in the article.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The result was merge to California State University, San Bernardino#Student life. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Coyote Chronicle

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

Non-notable student newspaper. Google pulls up almost nothing that isn't tied to the paper itself (string: coyote chronicle csusb). While an old edit claims that it had won an award from the California College Media Ass'n, I have no way of verifying whether this is true because the year they got the award in (2007) isn't on the CCMA's website. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 02:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to California State University, San Bernardino#Student organizations, and activities. I tried searching Google and Newspapers.com, and pretty much nothing came up, so GNG seems pretty unlikely to be met. A case could be made based on criteria 1 (assuming the award is true and significant enough) and 3 (assuming we could find evidence) of WP:NMEDIA, but it'd be a stretch, and NMEDIA isn't a PAG. That page's WP:STUDENTMEDIA section advises redirection over deletion. {{u|Sdkb}}  22:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP Relevant college and community paper. Please see other articles about college papers. House1090 (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not much of an argument. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 18:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

KEEP When I did a search of Newspapers.com I was able to find four references to the Coyote Chronicle. At least two of the articles have relevant information to add to the Misplaced Pages article. If the decision is to keep the article, I will look into adding some information. I won't have a lot to add, but I'm not interested in adding anything, if the article is just going to be deleted. Since the article is part of a series of articles pertaining to CSUSB, I think it should be kept. It does seem though that the article should be labeled a stub article. If it is merged with California State University, San Bernardino#Student organizations, and activities, probably not much information would be lost, but I'm not sure how you would handle the infobox. I agree with House1090 that this article is in line with other college newspaper articles.OvertAnalyzer (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's the thing: Without those sources you've found, it's more likely the article will be deleted. The best way to derail an AfD, I've found, is adding sources to an article and rewriting it to address the nominator's concerns. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 18:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to California State University, San Bernardino#Student life, in agreement with Sdkb. The available sourcing and limited info doesn't warrant a standalone article, and there's already some info at the proposed redirect target. TimTempleton 21:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Merge to California State University, San Bernardino#Student life. As it stands the current version of the article isn't sourced enough for a stand alone article. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Redirect as above, non-notable. If merged should have independent sources for anything more than the existing passing mention in the article. KylieTastic (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Murray (physiologist)

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

BLPs probably shouldn't sit around with notability questions for more than a decade. I was unable to find WP:Independent sources that discuss this person. He was quoted in the news when a different Cambridge alumnus won a prize, but aside from confirming his job title and employer's name, the few independent sources I could find do not describe him. I'd be very happy to have this nomination declined on WP:HEY grounds. (Watch out for the many wrong Andrew Murrays; I found that Andrew Murray Cambridge -tennis was a useful search string.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Both enough Google Scholar citations for WP:PROF#C1 and enough popular-press articles about his research for #C7. I removed some unsourced personal details from the article (for which I could not find sources despite searching) and replaced them with more material on his research. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep Agree with David Eppstein. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep, more than enough evidence on show thanks to David Eppstein's work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus that the subject meets NPROF and potentially also GNG. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Bill Vicenzino

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

This BLP has done some interesting research (e.g., tennis elbow is best treated with physical therapy exercises, not cortisone shots) but none of the sources I could find do more than quote him. It's not possible to write an article about him that is WP:Based upon the WP:Independent sources, when the independent sources don't talk about him. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Google Scholar citation counts show a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 and "Chair in Sports Physiotherapy" probably also passes #C5. There is no shortage of primary-sourced but adequate material for factual claims about him; secondary and independent sources are not needed here (they are part of the wrong notability criterion, WP:GNG, not part of WP:PROF). But even if it were needed, his research also has plenty of mainstream media coverage . That coverage is of what he is notable for having done, not the sort of coverage of his romantic history or taste in restaurants as we might expect for celebrities not notable for having done anything, so the nomination statement looking for celebrity-like coverage is so far off-base that this could be a speedy close. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of the GNG. I was thinking about how to make the article comply with Misplaced Pages:No original research, specifically "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". Secondary sources are needed to comply with that policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: If the University of Queensland, in their official profile page for him, calls him "Chair in Sports Physiotherapy", then there can be no reasonable doubt that he is Chair in Sports Physiotherapy at the University of Queensland. Bureaucratic requirements for independence are both unnecessary for verifiability and are counter to the explicit wording of WP:PROF, which states "For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source." Or to put it another way: you are making up requirements that do not exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  NOR does not require Misplaced Pages:Independent sources. NOR requires WP:SECONDARY sources. Misplaced Pages:Secondary does not mean independent.
  
  I'm not asking whether the individual facts are verifiable. I'm asking how you can write a bona fide encyclopedia article without secondary sources. Secondary sources analyze the subject, evaluates his work, or places him in the larger context, and that's what an encyclopedia article should do. If you give an editor exclusively primary sources, and you prohibit editors from doing their own original research to evaluate the subject, then you can't really write more than a Who's Who-type listing, which is IMO not an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  That's a fine speech, but the article already has five in-depth secondary sources that analyze the subject's work and put it into context (two book reviews and three mainstream media articles). Probably you can find more among the 20,000 sources citing his work counted here that are sufficiently analytic to meet your requirements. There do exist very rare articles whose subjects pass WP:PROF#C1 but where we don't have enough sources to say anything more than "their work has been heavily cited"; this is not one of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep. Many papers with 100s of citations, including several as first/last author (in a field where that matters) gives WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America 01:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Eidetic (film)

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

Short film produced as part of student's Masters thesis. Claim of "first Sri Lankan short film to be screened at the San Diego Comic-Con's International Independent Film Festival" does not establish notability. Awards in student film categories does not either. 1292simon (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep as has substantial coverage in multiple Sri Lankan reliable sources already in the article such as The Sunday Times here and the Daily News. Also AFDs should not be started as a result of an editing dispute as per Misplaced Pages:SKCRIT, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you please WP:AGF? This nomination was made for the reasons stated above, and was not intended to disrupt or vandalise. 1292simon (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 09:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus is that the topic has sufficient sources to meet notability guidelines. Article cleanup and improvement is the next step. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Scranton Fire Department

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

Extremely long article about a single fire department, with no indication of importance, and exclusively first party sources. If proper WP:GNG passing sources for it can be found at all, this article needs major cleanup. Full of fluff, to say the least. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep This article doesn't look that bad to me, though it could use more secondary sources. That being said, there are secondary sources available: . Not a small-time fire department, but the fire department for one of the biggest cities in Pennsylvania. ~EDDY ~ 01:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Merge to the article on Scranton. There is no justification for a free standing article on the fire department.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep This fire department is exceptionally well-documented as it had a dedicated historian who wrote several books about it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep the article being a little fluffed out doesn't mean we should delete it. blindlynx (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW. We have tended to keep large fire/police departments. See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Genesee County, New York Sheriff's Office, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Honolulu Fire Department, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lee County Sheriff's Office (Florida) for precedents. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hoops (1986 video game)

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

The article seems to lack significant coverage to be notable enough to have an article, as per WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. The creator of this article made the couple of sentences and moved on. Le Panini 00:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 14. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep - This was trivially easy to find additional sources for - just look at the source provided in the article and find other reliable sources that also reviewed the game using the details it provides. Please do WP:BEFORE properly in future. Especially, nearly every game released before the shareware era began (i.e., early 1990's) was likely reviewed by multiple magazines so there are nearly always sources for them. EDIT: and once a bit of research had been done on this game it turned out to be pretty notable given the people involved in making it. FOARP (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep thanks to sources found by FOARP. BOZ (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep Good work FOARP — Ad Meliora ∕_Contribs 12:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep per Sports Illustrated and Computer Gaming World sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep apparently. Nice job Foarp! Le Panini 17:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As this appears that this article will remain can someone move Hoops (video game) to Hoops (1988 video game)?--65.92.160.124 (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Le Panini, sorry if I was a bit harsh above. I'll close this one as withdrawn if that's OK. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep - another classic WP:HEY Spiderone 19:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. No-one has been able to show how the subject satisfies WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Source UK Services

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Spam target. Native advertising. scope_creep 19:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what do you mean by "spam target"? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep: Notable company, has several third-party sources, and satisfies WP:NCORP. Bretalins (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Bretalins, I'm interested that you say that several third-party sources satisfy NCORP. I'm unable to locate even a single reference that meets NCORP criteria - can you please provide a link or two here to the articles you've found? Thank you. HighKing 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I’m also going to say ~~Keep~~, as the article appears to meet GNG in my eyes. Plus, the nom’s comments are too vague. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I intend to go through the first block of references. The references are shockingly bad. The reason I said it was a spam target, was even thought it is a small private company, it is written like that like a large public company, and reams of folk have WP:PUFFed it right up. scope_creep 00:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose you have given better reasons now, so I'm going to move to a Weak Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 00:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment Small private company of 34 employees. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NOTADVERTISING. scope_creep 08:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment It should be redirected to Invesco, the company that bought it. scope_creep 08:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Delete Leaving aside the fact that this article reads like a promotional brochure, I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. I've asked one Keep !voter above who says that there are sources to provide a link, I'm happy to change my !vote if references can be found and links provided. HighKing 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Note I dislike the fact that it appears that the author of the AfD deleted a large chunk of the article right after moving to delete. I would have much preferred to have the community pass judgement on the article as it was earlier this month.--Concertmusic (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Concertmusic: The company no longer exists. It was bought. Those product entries, which are strictly against WP:NOTADVERTISING and bolded, shouldn't be in the article, in the first place. scope_creep 00:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Zoozaz1 talk 00:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Theweek

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A newspaper from Oman. The article is unsourced. The article has been sitting here since 2006. There hadn't been any sources added ever since. Searching is also difficult, as "the week", even if written as one word, is not a special or outstanding phrase, so there are numerous other results with these words included. It doesn't help that there is another newspaper named The Week, so most of the results are about that instead. So I tried searching with "Theweek Oman", finally some sites are available that are actually about this paper, unfortunately they are not independent at all. The results were the following: the paper's official site, and their facebook, pinterest and twitter pages. The rest of the results are stuff like the words appear separately, like "the week in Oman" or "this week in Oman" and the like. So I couldn't find anything reliable about this paper. Is it notable? I don't think so. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Searching "Theweek" AND "Oman" I was able to find two reliable sources discussing an incident which the paper was involved with in 2013. The two sources are the UK version of PinkNews and Reuters, which explain how Theweek published an article about Oman's underground LGBTQ scene which then resulted in a Theweek editor being sued by the Omani government, and Theweek publishing an apology for the story. The Reuters link is here, and the UK PinkNews article is here. The reason why I wrote this as a comment rather than an argument for "Keep" is because I'm not sure if two reliable sources is enough to warrant keeping the article, since I really cannot find any others (and it appears the OP had trouble finding sources as well). --PubSyr (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: To answer part of the OP's concerns about the proper way to refer to this source, it appears that the proper way to refer to the newspaper (as is done in Reuters and PinkNews) is as "TheWeek" - one word, with the initial "T" and medial "W" capitalized. --PubSyr (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Hmm, the language situation here is interesting. This appears to be an English-language newspaper, but my understanding is that Arabic is the lingua franca in Oman. There's no Arabic version of this page, but I find it plausible that there might be some Arabic-language coverage. @PubSyr: the sources above would probably only count as one, since it's for the same event, but IAR I'm inclined to !vote keep, since a publication with more than 150,000 weekly circulation feels sufficiently notable to me. {{u|Sdkb}}  23:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 00:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC) Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, YorkshireLad ✿ 20:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment per above. –Cupper52 20:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep: There are actually plenty more sources if you dig. Per previous comments there are plenty of articles about that dustup in 2013, way more than two in-depth articles in WP:RS (I'll just cherry-pick the first few google hits, but there are way more: 1,2,3), but that could be vulnerable to being just WP:ONEEVENT. However, there is far more coverage than that if you poke around. Here are circulation numbers and a brief comparative discussion of it in the context of Oman's publishing scene. Here is business coverage of it that suggests it's notable for being the first newspaper in Oman to do something or other related to circulation auditing. And here's coverage of its circulation and niche in an Oxford Business Group report (sadly only semi-online, but easily enough content included in the google preview to tell that it's in-depth). That's just what I could find in the first few google hits, if you hit put your shoulder into it I'm sure there's more out there. So WP:GNG is easily there if you look. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Associated Students of Pomona College

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes GNG. Was deprodded, citing the sources from LAist, as well as the Sumner and Lyon books, but both of those authors are associated with the university, and therefore are not independent. Onel5969 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 18:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep ~~(albeit a little borderline)~~. The LAist article clearly qualifies as the first source for notability. The Story of Pomona College and The History of Pomona College, 1887–1969 are both historical scholarly accounts of the college that discuss ASPC at length. While the authors were both associated with Pomona, both books were published through independent trade publishers (Pilgrim Press and the Castle Press, respectively) who had final say over the content and held the works to objective scholarly standards. Lyon's account in particular was praised for its scholarly detachment: The American Historical Review called it a "clear and objective account", and Pacific Historical Review notes Lyon's "established reputation as a professional historian" and says that "his even-handed devotion to history is apparent on every page". Therefore, my view is that while the authors were not independent, the sources after review were. {{u|Sdkb}}  18:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Weak delete I almost agree with Sdkb's analysis of the sources. Except I'm leaning toward weak delete because of the whole "even-handed devotion to history is apparent on every page" thing. It's hard to call someone detached from the subject they are writing about while also saying they are devoted to it. So, I don't know. Would Lyon be writing about the school if he was not associated with it? Probably not. Is there something wrong with writing about a school your associated with? Not really, but I'm still borderline on saying the person is truly independent of the topic in that case. Especially considering his "devotion" to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I read that line as more referring to a scholarly devotion to the history than a personal devotion to the college. The reviewer reiterated the point pretty directly later in the review: "Lyon's detachment in writing this history has been exemplary." {{u|Sdkb}}  23:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Sources update: Okay, so I did the Newspapers.com search, which turned up quite a lot: "Associated Students of Pomona College" in quotes gave more than 500 results, despite the database not containing any publications based at the college. Some are of course trivial mentions (e.g. events with one line noting ASPC sponsorship), but others are clearly not. For instance, the April 1970 headline "Two Students Sharing Top Position" in the Los Angeles Times is about two students who ran jointly for ASPC president. That's a pretty clear GNG qualifier. {{u|Sdkb}}  20:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Generally, you have to be careful about using local newspaper coverage to show notability. If it was regional, or better national, coverage I'd go for that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Adamant1, the L.A. Times definitely isn't local in my book—it's the largest newspaper in the U.S. not based on the East Coast, and pretty indisputably the newspaper of record for the greater Los Angeles region if not the entire West Coast. Sources like the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin are more local but still cover multiple cities across the Inland Empire region. However, even if we were to decide the Daily Bulletin and LAist don't count, the WP:AUD section of WP:NORG only asks for one non-local source. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}  20:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

What matters is if it's local "coverage", not what news outlet it's being printed in. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete. I fail to see how a student organization qualifies a encyclopedic material. I'm sure they have a website. Look, I found it!. There's a Zoom event scheduled for today! Wow! KidAd talk 20:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
KidAd, there's plenty of precedent for having articles on student governments. Category:Student governments in the United States has roughly 47 entries. {{u|Sdkb}}  20:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

^WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd talk 20:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to Pomona College#Student life: The article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage that would contribute to demonstrating WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 15:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, the article's sourcing has been significantly improved since the nomination. If you've not had a chance to do so, could you please review them? If you have, could you speak to why full articles in the Los Angeles Times and LAist and clearly non-trivial coverage in multiple scholarly histories do not count in your view? I'm concerned that there may be some follow the leader dynamics here, and since this isn't a vote, simple assertions of "does not meet GNG" are not going to count for much unless they're justified. {{u|Sdkb}}  16:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply The IS RS sourcing is about Pomona College (or the Claremont Colleges), not about Associated Students of Pomona College. There are no sources that provide SIGCOV directly and indepth for the subject. When the subject is mentioned in sources, it is in connection to the general student life at the college and that is where the article should redirect. There is routine, normal, run of the mill coverage, but nothing that shows the subject is notable. // Timothy :: talk 16:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
TimothyBlue, when the Los Angeles Times (which, as a national newspaper, is plainly not writing for a readership only of Pomona students) publishes the article I referenced above about the ASPC presidency, the main subject is clearly ASPC, not Pomona College. Similarly, LAist's article about ASPC withdrawing funding for a party is clearly mainly about ASPC, not Pomona. The two historical books are mostly about Pomona, of course, but they each have direct, in-depth coverage of ASPC over multiple pages, which qualifies by our normal definition of significant. Pomona College covers ASPC very briefly in summary style, as it should, but it would be undue for it to discuss ASPC at the level of detail justified at ASPC's page by the reliable sourcing available, so a redirect/merge would be ill-advised. {{u|Sdkb}}  18:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - the article's creator might be well suited to read WP:BLUDGEON.Onel5969 00:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Onel5969, well, it's hard for me to defend myself against that accusation without reinforcing it, but note that that essay applies to reiterating points that you've already made, not responding to arguments reasonably concisely. I try to trust that people will WP:READ the sources presented before !voting, making reiteration unnecessary. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Merge to Pomona College#Student life. I don't think this LA Times article can be construed to represent significant coverage in any way. Mentions in this add up to about a page, suprisingly little in a book that's supposed to be all about the college- if it really had independent notability, I'd honestly expect more. I can't read , but I'd imagine that it's similar. LAist isn't anything substantive, not really. It's a pretty minor story in a pretty minor paper. Particularly given that this must meet NORG's pretty high guideline, what I see is that Pomona College is clearly notable, but this org doesn't really stand on it's own. Can be merged to it's own nice sub-section in the main article. Eddie891 _Work 18:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Related discussion: Given Adamant1's question above about whether the college historical accounts qualify, I brought them to the Reliable Souces Noticeboard. Of the two editors who have weighed in so far, one considered both reliable and the other considered Lyon 1977 reliable but was unsure about Sumner 1914 without knowing more about how it was received. Lyon has the more substantial coverage of ASPC (page numbers are included in the citations). I note that NORG lists a book passage...focusing on a product or organization as an example of significant coverage. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}}  21:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 00:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep I am not a big fan of the attempt to delete the article by the author of the AfD, prior to listing for deletion. I subsequently also see good faith efforts by the author of the article to improve the piece.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was merge to Guru Nanak. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī 09:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

List of places visited by Guru Nanak

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

Almost entirely unreferenced list that, I believe, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Will happily withdraw if it turns out that these visits form a coherent set meeting WP:LISTN—Guru_Nanak#Journeys_(Udasis) suggests that they might—but at present I'm not seeing it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - This list looks correct to me but there are no citations! May be someone should improve it.Serv181920 (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Merge to Guru Nanak Notable subject but does not require stand alone page. Orientls (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Merge per above. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is merging an unsourced list a good idea?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge to Guru Nanak per above. // Timothy :: talk 17:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

CyberSEO (plugin)

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

No evidence of any notability. One of very many plug-ins that are available. Only a single mention in the refs and searches reveal plenty of mentions from selling and software sites, but nothing that I could see that conveyed notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella 13:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Velella 13:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete non-notable wordpress plugin.--KartikeyaS (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep Excuse me. Not notable where and for whom? It's a very old project and I'm using it since 2010 or something like that. I can assure you it's a very popular plugin among the IM people (those that do Internet Marketing). You should understand that the content curation/syndication niche is not a mainstream one. It's a very narrow thing for a small % of WordPress users. However it's really popular in specific IM niches. Not even mention its popularity in the online adult industry. Why there? The answer is very simple - most of the existing content delivery solutions (e.g. usual blog feeds, news feeds, youtube video feeds, online shop product feeds etc) have were firstly adopted by the adult industry and after that they became usual for all of us. So if you don't work in the IM niche, it's really a non-notable thing for you, but not for me. For example, I heard about Tiktok, FaceBook, Tinder and VK, but they are absolutely non-notable for me. I have never had an account there and have no idea on how to use them. Should they be deleted only because I'm not familiar with them personally? By the way, this is my first and I hope last post at wikipedia... Nobody knows why Misplaced Pages is full of disinformation subjective opinions. I think that's because of all these "moderators" that think they know it all... VladZornin (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC) — VladZornin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Totally not a notable piece of software. Which isn't suppressing. Since the article seems to have been created and mainly edited by a SPA/COI editor. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

*Keep It's mentioned in the book which is written by an absolutely independent journalist and course it's mentioned on many WordPress-related sites in the Net. Now why it's not one of many. The developers suggest a good money reward to anyone who will show a better alternative. If you believe it's just "one of many", why don't you send them a link to any other but better universal content syndicator for WordPress and just take your money? --Salvadorlee (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC) — Salvadorlee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. comment struck - user blocked as a sock.

Comment - Being a better alternative than something else is a very, very long way from establishing notability. Velella 12:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Let me disagree with you. When we say "an ultimate assault riffle", we think about AK47. When we say "a modern handgun", we think about "Glock". When we say "image manipulation and compute graphics", we think about "Photoshop". When we say "an operating system for personal computers", we think about "Windows" etc. The same applies to CyberSEO. It's definitely not just a one of many. It's the one and only content syndication plugin for WordPress which supports all existing sources, such as RSS, Atom, XML of any structure, JSON of any structure, CSV and raw text dump of any structure and even HTML pages. If you know any other plugin with the same features, please tell us about it and please make a special article for it in Misplaced Pages. Andrewsix (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Curiously, I never think of guns and know nothing about them - we don't have them in Britain. Claiming notability because something does a thing that no others do, still needs reliable and independent sources. I can drink a cup of tea using my toes. I know of nobody else that can do that, but it still isn't notable, thankfully. Velella 18:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I'll give you a hint which works for everything: for cars, for toasters, for chocolate and for software. If you want to compare something with something, just read the documentation. Please believe me, that works IRL. There are not many professional multi-functional content syndication plugins for WordPress. You will barely need fingers of your second hand to number them all. So it's not a big deal to compare the specs, described on their official sites. If you, like me, were using them for years, you may consider yourself an expert. Personally I've started using RSS and CSV content fetching solutions in early 2000's, because almost all serious affiliate programs provide these tools to the partners. Andrewsix (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:GNG to understand why that isn't relevant. Velella 12:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest you to read WP:OZD? Andrewsix (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 00:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Delete. I'm simply not seeing any sign of notability for this WordPress plugin. The 'Book Source' in the article is a how to use wordpress tutorial book, in which the plugin is mentioned alongside 3 other similar plugins and given some trivial coverage that essentially amounts to installation and setup instructions. Google turns up primary sources, social media and mentions in lists and the like. No news or newspaper hits. I was unable to find any significant coverage in google books. I've also not been able to find any sources under the plugin's previous name, CyberSyn. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The result was keep. Consensus that material about the franchise currently in Alpha and Omega be moved into this article. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad ✿ 19:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Alpha and Omega (film series)

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

Unnecessary page as the "sequels" section at Alpha and Omega (film) contains the same or even more information about the series than here. The tables in this article might be merged into that article and maybe rename that page to Alpha and Omega (film series). ~Styyx 09:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx 09:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

~~Merge~~ into Alpha and Omega#Sequels. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Changing to Weak Keep as the others have provided good points. Foxnpichu (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep It's seems better to move the excessive content on the first films articles page to the film series article instead.★Trekker (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think you have a point, but do we really need two separate pages for this franchise? ~Styyx 19:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally prefer to keep film pages to being just film pages, adding on a list of sequels and a table feels like its a bit too close to Chimera/Misplaced Pages:FRANKENSTEIN for my taste.★Trekker (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 13:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep for the reasons given above. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 00:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep per above. Elms 05:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)