Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 04	July 06 >

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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 04:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Siddiqui

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

Unelected politician; previously returned to draftspace on more than one occasion and subsequently rejected at review. Advice was then left by the reviewer not to move again to main but to seek advice. Moved to mainspace again without improvement. Brief 'Google' search does not reveal any additional information. Eagleash (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source problem, you can delete it. মঞ্জুর আলম খান(talk) 10:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Eagleash I dont see any problem. Multiple news sites (basically all major Indian newspapers/TV channels/news websites,etc) covered him extensively. How is not notable enough. How is he not getting elected any indication of how notable he is? He is well known across the country and all major news channels have covered him. Not a strong argument. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Rasalghul1711: The problem is that three experienced reviewers (other than myself) have considered the subject to be lacking in notability. Two returned the item to draftspace and the third rejected the item at review as being contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Despite this and advice given, the creator moved the item to mainspace again. This has come to be known as 'move-warring', is disruptive to the encyclopedia and cannot continue. The convention is to propose the item for deletion so the wider community can decide. WP:NPOL clearly states unelected politicians cannot be considered notable. Any other aspects are up for discussion. BTW, I did not get your 'ping' as it was incorrectly formatted and pings have to be added in one edit including the message and signature or they will not work. Adding later will fail. Eagleash (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject fails WP:NPOL for not having been elected, but he seems to pass WP:GNG. The article is sourced to multiple national Indian news sites, which call him influential, and a Google search of his name shows more national coverage. - Tristan Surtel (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the subject appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. His coverage is almost exclusively centered around an election with none a month before it or after the election. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there definitely is some substance here, and there are a good 4-5 in-depth citations in the article which I believe help the subject pass WP:GNG. That being said the arguments brought up by Tayi Arajakate do have some merit too, as I have been unable to find anything of note about Siddiqui after March 2021, and I would not be opposed to the article being re-nominated or drafted in a few months. Overall I do lean towards keeping, especially given quantity and quality of the references. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Danko Jones discography. Daniel (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danko Jones (EP)

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

Non-notable and poorly sourced album. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has an Allmusic rating/review. Donaldd23 (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Per WP:NALBUM, "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Allmusic review is four lines long. That doesn't amount to much, in other words, it's trivial and/or insignificant. Geschichte (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Length is irrelevant as Allmusic rates on a scale of 1 to 5 stars and Allmusic is listed as a reliable source WP:RSMUSIC and has given a 3-star rating to this album. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald; are you claiming that Allmusic giving a star with no text also amounts to significant coverage? There are many deletion discussions that say otherwise.. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to one of those discussions so that I may verify. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, it is listed as a reliable source here, with no disqualifier saying the review needs to be a certain length. It says that the star rating is "assigned by the editorial team, not the reviewer"...which means there is editorial oversight and qualifies towards notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the AFD archives for empty Allmusic review and these are some of them: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friday's Child (band) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ungrateful, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airborne (band) (2nd nomination).
Just a star with no context does not amount to significant coverage, regardless of who gave it.
Of course, as stated above this review has some text, so I'm actually neutral. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Danko Jones discography. Aside from an AllMusic review, there's not enough sources to meet WP:NALBUM. SBKSPP (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - One source is not enough to establish independent notability. (And the source given it a pretty weak argument for significant as is too - it's extremely brief. It's a viable search term, and I'm open to reconsidering if someone finds better sources. But as is, it shouldn't exist as a stand alone article due to failing the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's mentioned widely in Canadian media--The Record, Toronto Star, The Spectator, Times-Colonist, etc., with some of those sources claiming that it's "acclaimed". Most are short mentions, even very short mentions. Perhaps Bearcat will weigh in... Caro7200 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – I know absolutely nothing about this artist, but in this article's current stance, having only an AllMusic rating doesn't make it qualified as notable. – zmbro _(talk) 18:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danko_Jones_discography#EPs_and_others per above. Not finding any reliable source mentions. Though I agree with SergeCross, if better sources are found then I'll reconsider my vote. QuietHere (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Malekzadeh (entrepreneur)

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

This is a promotional article where none of the sources listed demonstrate the notability of the subject. At best, he is mentioned in passing in sources. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ IMO the subject is notable, but the article must be fixed. It is entirely a promotional piece.JalenPhotos2 (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — After additional consideration, I have changed my mind. This article is too far gone to be salvaged. Delete. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~. Indeed, the article is too PROMO. Most of the sources are primary or just spam. However, there are several good sources, like the CNN interview. The subject was the public face of VMware for many years. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure what interview you're referring to. The only CNN source is this one, which only mentions the subject in passing. Also note that interview-style articles cannot be use to satisfy WP:GNG. When you talk about the other "several good sources", which ones are you referring to exactly? Because I only see crap in the references section. Mottezen (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Business 2.0 is not crap. Several universities libraries collect this edition, for example: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=fDQiAQAAMAAJ I don't agree that the subject is mentioned in passing. If you remove his words the statements will lose foundation in this article. Moreover, the same phrases are cited in other sources, for example: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=XO4bAQAAMAAJ Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here is the only paragraph where Malekzadeh is mentioned in the 23-pararaph article: For instance, in response to customers' ceaseless clamoring for easier remote access to their corporate networks, Cisco scouts tracked down an obscure little outfit called Twingo. Engineers Reza Malekzadeh and Gregorie Gentil founded the startup 20 months ago with less than $100,000 of their own money. They bought used hardware on Craigslist, hired a few part-time coders, and within 12 months had come up with Twingo Secure Desktop, an ingenious technology that allows road warriors to securely connect to their office computers from any Web browser. Some VCs expressed interest in the company, but Malekzadeh says Twingo realized that what it had created was "more a feature for a product than a company." When Cisco dangled a $5.5 million cash offer, Twingo bit. "It's not such a bad thing to just be an addition to an existing product," Malekzadeh says. "It's OK not to go public.". Simply put, this is not significant coverage. Mottezen (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the quantitative approach (counting the paragraphs, sources, words). Books may have even more than 23 paragraphs. So, should we ignore them because of that? In this case what matters is the fact that 2 independent reputable sources (Business 2.0 and the Entrepreneurship magazine) cited the subject to support certain statements. This means that they trusted the notability of the subject. Maybe that's because the subject was invited to several international conferences. Maybe this guy just fooled everybody like many others do. If there were more good sources I'd voted for a strong keep, not a weak one. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "The quantitate approach", this is a clause of WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The paragraph above is clearly trivial coverage. Just one example used by the author to demonstrate a point.

And I don't have access to the Entrepreneurship magazine text, but if cites "the same phrases" as you said above, then I presume that it doesn't provide significant coverage either. Mottezen (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google books lets you preview the text without having full access: https://books.google.com.co/books?id=XO4bAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Reza+Malekzadeh It's exactly the same text. The fact that the claim is supported by reliable secondary sources is exactly the opposite of original research. If the subject is not notable, then why at least 2 editorials are citing him to demonstrate specific claims? They don't cite random people. In my opinion this is totally not trivial coverage. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if its "exactly the same text", then it counts as the same source. If we were to count this paragraph as significant coverage, that would still just be one RS. Not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Mottezen (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to read more opinions. If nobody else wants to vote I'll agree with your point. Maybe this level of coverage is really not good enough. I've removed my vote. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, beneath the promo there is some coverage of the subject: this and this. Agreed that much of this is promo however. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider these two sources reliable either. The first source contains extensive citations of subject's words, which usually means the source might be significantly influenced by the subject. Also, the site is very strange: it appears to be just someone's early attempt to make a personal blog or news website (journalism excercise, perhaps). It has only a few news-style articles on random topics. It looks like someone has an FTP hosting and dropped some files in there (top-level dir). Files include some personal-looking stuff like excerpts from random emails and photo backups. The second source consists entirely of quotations from press release made by subjects' employer (the rest is filler words and transition sentences). Anton.bersh (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are either directly promotional or are not sufficiently independent to be reliable. Anton.bersh (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite there yet. Also, too much promotion. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article with insufficient sourcing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Yu

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

An article about a local sportscaster with two references with no detail establishing notability. Outside of the two sources listed, I was unable to find anything on the individual. And those two sources don't have much detail anyway just like the article. Prior to nominating this article, I added the deletion prod template stating that it "Fails WP:GNG". It was removed because the editor stated in his edit summary that "it has a ref". But these references don't have much to them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has coverage in the NY Times for her marriage, and she is the author of two books. I've added that info and references into the article as well as updated her position as anchor of NY1 the news channel in New York City. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzheado, it's great that you added more to the article, but unfortunately that New York Times article is nothing that's really newsworthy and those books she's written aren't exactly notable especially when it's sourced with a review. At this point, it looks more like a resume than an actually biography of a notable person. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to not keep. No consensus about a redirect, which can be separately created and contested if need be. Sandstein 06:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Portsmouth, Ohio mayoral recall election

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

Importance of election not demonstrated. The subject of the recall does not even have their own article, nor is it evident that they are notable enough to have one. SecretName101 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Portsmouth, Ohio. —valereee (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portsmouth, Ohio per above. Sanketio31 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:LASTING criterion of WP:NEVENT per others. Not sure that redirection is a good idea, since this election isn't mentioned in the proposed target at all, and would likely be WP:UNDUE to merge anywhere. Hog Farm _Talk 04:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 04:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagvir Singh

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

Did not appear for the Brøndby IF yet, in which he signed January this year. Fails WP:NFOOTY and possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Chirota (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Chirota (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, Let me know what to do in order to not delete the site. I’m new to this, but i’ve used all sources that exists on the bio. I find it odd, that Jagvir Singh is the only player in the Brøndby squad, that doesn’t have a wiki-page. Best, /Per

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace until he makes a first team appearance, as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace until first WP:FPL appearance, which seems possible in the next 6–12 months. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage about him. Doesn't matter if he appears in a game tomorrow, he still needs significant coverage. The FAQ from the top of WP:NFOOTBALL makes it crystal clear that all sport figures need to pass WP:GNG
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
Alvaldi (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace, and I'm not entirely convinced he doesn't pass WP:GNG, lots of good and relevant sources out there for him.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp: Could you please post the best three good an relevant sources you found on the subject to help us determine if he passes WP:GNG? Alvaldi (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that these references already on page are good enough: 1, 2, 3, 4.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace FAILS WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This could be relisted again, I suppose, but the focal point of the discussion has not been the availability of sources, but whether available sources meet GNG or not, and I find no consensus on this point, and almost zero likelihood of consensus developing. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michee Efete

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

fails WP:NFOOTY and appears to fail WP:GNG, with the sources being either primary or routine Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there's enough third party coverage that he just passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page created on the premise that he played top flight professional football in Iceland, although EFL Trophy doesn't count for notability there is plenty enough sources out there for it to pass GNG. As ever on this site, I am all for keeping articles alive and growing them rather than hastily cutting them down before they've had the chance to make certain requirements. Footballgy (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - pinging @Alvaldi: on the basis that this player might have had some significant coverage during their time in Iceland. I haven't found any myself and the English coverage seems to mostly be routine transfer news as far as I can see. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: His signing was met with mostly routine coverage [1][2][3] and his departure got a couple of articles on Fótbolti.net.[4][5] Outside of mentions in routine game coverage, he did get some small coverage after getting benched for being late to one game [6][7][8]. This article/interview is probably the longest coverage on him that I could find in the Icelandic media. Fótbolti.net has two articles on him since he left, this one about him being loaned to Torquay United and this one from 25 June 2021 that is actually a short retelling from this rather substancial piece from the Grimsby Telegraph. I also stumbled on this article from the Eastern Daily Press that covers his stay in Iceland. Alvaldi (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - [9] [10] [11] from Alvaldi's post above just about sum to a GNG pass. It can probably be argued either way but I'm leaning towards keep. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I believe the coverage does not amount to significant coverage, as the coverage pertains to football on a very low level; in addition he played very few games (8) on that level. Geschichte (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think you make that case for hundreds if not thousands of other articles on players who played half a dozen or less games in the Football League or any other professional League and then either spent time in Non-League or retired. There are plenty of them and they have far less media coverage than Efete. The article currently only scratches the surfaces as a stub, and with him being at Grimsby Town who are a professional club with good coverage I would imagine the article has promise if it's not going to be hastily cut first that is. Footballgy (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I also feel the article very weakly passes GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scrapes past WP:GNG. Finch14 (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2023 United States elections#Mayoral elections. Sandstein 06:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2023 San Francisco mayoral election

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

I propose deleting this article. It appears to have been created too soon. There is not any substantive information. There is not even any information about candidates or potential candidates, other than the fact that the incumbent could possibly seek reelection (which is the case with any future election in which a non-term limited incumbent has not indicated they won't seek reelection). I'd propose deleting it, and only recreating it once source information about other potential, declared, or declined candidates comes out.

Yes there are other cities that have had their 2023 mayoral election articles created (Jacksonville, Chicago, Philadelphia), and I created the latter two cities' articles. But in those cases, there is sourced information about potential and/or delcared candidates, other than just a non-term limited incumbent. SecretName101 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Move to Draftspace until the election becomes notable. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 23:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about proposing to move it to draftspace, but that might be somewhat unecessary. The article, as it stands, is so bare-bones that there is really nothing that could not be reproduced in mere minutes if the article is recreated from scratch. It literally has the basics any stub article would have on an election, and nothing else. Not opposed to moving to draft, but not sure that it is necessary to even retain this version as a draft, other than to save a few minutes over the possible alternative of recreating this from scratch later. SecretName101 (talk) 23:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that for sure. Either way it should be deleted. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 23:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2023 United States elections: I disagree with moving to draftspace. The most appropriate thing would be to simply create a redirect. This would allow the page to be instantly recovered when there are more sources and candidates. Curbon7 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 United States elections This redirect target makes sense for an election that will become notable. --Enos733 (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

American Samoa national football team records and statistics

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK, all of the information is copied from either American Samoa national football team or American Samoa national football team results, albeit with a slightly different all-time record. A separate article with this title has previously been deleted as an uncontested WP:PROD because it failed WP:NOTSTATS. This version is a different article and was moved from American Samoa national football team all-time record. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but we have Category:National association football team records and statistics; this forms part of an established article type and is referenced. Might need improvement, sure, but I see no reason to delete this and leave the others. Giant Snowman 19:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered merging as I don't think there is any issue with article size for the two parent articles (which wouldn't be the case for say Argentina or England who have payed over 1,000 matches) but the information was already there. I still wonder though if a merge/redirect would present a more optimal solution? Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = Per GiantSnowman's comment above, this is an established category of article. Agree also that improvement is the correct response. Macosal (talk) 05:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman's comment. I don't think this fails WP:NOTSTATS as that policy doesn't forbid all statistics pages, just "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics." This list does not appear to be excessive, nor is it unexplained as it provides some context as to where the stats are from and why they're important (documenting the results of a national football team like other pages in Category:National association football team records and statistics). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improvement would be worthwhile, but it is nonetheless large enough to warrant being separate from the team's article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman's comment.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Rhodes (yoga teacher)

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

Not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:BIO. I see some local and promotional coverage, but little else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack the type of indepth sourcing in indepdent reliable publications to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to demonstrate notability, nor do there appear to be any out there to add Dexxtrall (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

Significant coverage of the subject:
1. Vinyard, Valerie (2010-05-23). "Poster perfect: acclaimed yogi". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
  The article notes:
  
  In the yoga world, many superlatives go along with the name Darren Rhodes.
  Simply put, the Tucson resident and YogaOasis owner is one of the most visible anusara yogis in the world.
  In 2008, Yoga Journal named Rhodes one of the top 21 teachers younger than 40 who are "shaping the future of yoga."
  The 38-year-old also is the face - and body -for anusara yoga, which means "to flow with grace" and was founded in 1997 by 50-year-old Houston-based John Friend.
  Millions of people have seen and imitated Rhodes' poses on the anusara syllabus poster that's sold worldwide and at YogaOasis for $25 and $35.
  The article provides over 1,000 words of coverage about the subject.
2. YJ Editor (2008-07-02). "21 Famous Top Yoga Teachers in America". Yoga Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  The article notes:
  
  Darren Rhodes is quite literally the poster boy for Anusara Yoga. You can find him on the Anusara syllabus poster, deftly demonstrating more than 345 awe-inspiring poses. His motivation for achieving such a feat wasn’t ego driven; it came from his belief that asanas create more than just physical change. “When I come across a posture I really want to do, I ask myself, ‘How do I have to shift physically, mentally, and in my heart to be able to do that?’” He adds, “I want to be able to do a posture because I know it will require transformation on all levels.”
  Rhodes grew up in a family of yogis. His mother took up the practice when he was in utero, and his father is an avid meditator. He remembers entertaining his parents’ friends by doing poses in the living room. In high school he began practicing in earnest, using a Richard Freeman video and going to local studio classes. But it wasn’t until his early 20s that he met Anusara Yoga founder, John Friend, and had one of the most shakti-filled experiences of his life. “John turned my yoga practice into a radical, rockin’ life celebration,” he says, “which is what I strive to share in my classes.”
  Yoga Journal is an established publication. See "How 40-Year-Old Yoga Journal Keeps Up With Yoga's Newfound Fanatics" from the New York Observer and "Yoga Journal Celebrates Its First 10 Years in Russia" from The Moscow Times.
Less significant coverage of the subject:
1. Panasevich, Jake (2014-07-30). "10 Tips for Practicing Yoga at Home". U.S. News & World Report. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
2. Cushing, April (2013-04-19). "The Yoga Resource Practice Manual with Darren Rhodes. {eBook Review}". Elephant Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
3. Simonson, Scott (2003-07-07). "Yoga, and foot massages, too". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
4. Bloom, Rhonda Bodfield (2003-12-21). "Chanting: Giving voice to yoga". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
5. Gutherie, Catherine (2013-02-15). "5 Steps to Parivrtta Paschimottanasana". Yoga Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-07. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
6. Weintraub, Amy (March 2001). "Tucson Yoga Tour". Yoga Journal. Retrieved 2016-05-07.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Darren Rhodes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The regional newspaper Arizona Daily Star and the Yoga Journal allow the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
The other sources also combine to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which notes, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did see these two sources when I did my search. We have a local paper writing in the regional section of the paper about a local business, and an industry publication's celebrating its own (a genre I think we should generally be skeptical of). That said, both are helpful. I just disagree that they get us over the WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article in the coverage from the Arizona Daily Star includes contact details for the business it is talking about at the end of the article suggests to me that it originates from a press release Dexxtrall (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline nor Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria say that regional or industry sources cannot be used to establish notability for a person. Yoga Journal is an established publication. See "How 40-Year-Old Yoga Journal Keeps Up With Yoga's Newfound Fanatics" from the New York Observer and "Yoga Journal Celebrates Its First 10 Years in Russia". The Arizona Daily Star article is a feature story about Darren Rhodes and his yoga studio. It included the yoga studio's contact information in case readers want to learn more about the studio. That does not make it a press release. Cunard (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the sources identified by Cunard would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not view the two sources, one of which is a local profile of a local yoga teacher, as meeting the bar set by WP:GNG. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1) I added Rhodes trademark YogaHour, and references about his impact beyond Tucson, AZ (2) Arizona Daily Star itself is a wiki article, thus, it is a notable paper. The author, (Valerie Vinyard), is a senior writer at Arizona Daily Star and a Journalism instructor at Pima Community College; additionally, the article does not have a paid promotion notice. It seems a genuine publication to celebrate Rhodes as one of the top 21 teachers younger than 40 who are "shaping the future of yoga". This is a celebration of a nationwide recognition. Yoga Journal is an award-winning magazine (see this in its wikipedia article), it is based in Boulder, Colorado. The multiple publications about Darren Rhodes in Yoga Journal are prestigious. Elephant Journal is a popular yoga magazine and it has been accepted in wikipedia articles, e.g. in the Akong Rinpoche entry. (3) I don't know how to invite Wikipedia:WikiProject Yoga to this discussion, but it would be nice to have their input. Thank you! --Pinterma1000szer (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not quite enough sigcov from solid reliable sources. The Arizona Daily star is local to Rhodes, and being listed as one of 21 yoga teachers isn't particular compelling. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ohnoitsjamie: Yoga Journal listed Darren Rhodes as one of the top 21 teachers younger than 40 who are "shaping the future of yoga": 21 Famous Top Yoga Teachers in America. Yoga Journal is not local to Darren Rhodes, since it is not based in Tucson; also this 21 is a nationwide selection. The wiki article on Yoga Journal: "Yoga Journal has won major media awards including eight Western Publications Association's Maggie Awards for "Best Health and Fitness Magazine," and the Award's top honor for "Best Overall Consumer Publication."" Thank you! Pinterma1000szer (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)pinterma1000szer[reply]
Weak delete per Ohnoitsjamie and WP:TOOSOON. There's the Arizona Daily Star. which arguendo is reliable, but I am not familiar with the others. Yoga Journal might be notable, but mostly for the criticism against it. That's two, but not three good sources. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Wray Gill

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. There are sources, but not enough coverage to meet notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Google shows some news sources related to many of his legal cases, and a check ofavailable print an online files would probably find more. This is only a weak keep bcause i'm not going to have time to do the checking myself. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more, in the hope of getting a few more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely weak keep. Tons of mentions of his name in newspapers.com (about 450) but the vast majority just seem to be him getting mentioned/quoted in connection with his cases. There appears to be almost no coverage about him. Seems plausible that it may exist within those 450 articles, but I don't have time to go through all of them. The one exception is that he murdered someone as a young adult (!) and then was pardoned, a fact that is not currently mentioned in the article. It appears to have been quite a scandal, and there is plenty of coverage of that (of the Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:BLP1E variety). I added a few new sources (about his marriage, the murder, and his death) to the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programming languages by type#Scripting languages. Nobody is for keeping this article with these sources, but there is reluctance to delete it outright. Redirection is a compromise that allows restoration if better sources are found. Sandstein 07:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winbatch

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

Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability under our guidelines. One reference is cited and three external links are given but all four link to the vendor's website and own words, making them clearly primary. Searches for other useful sources on the web, books, news, newspapers and scholar turned up an old ad, a page where you could buy it and a history of it of unknown origin (though it looks suspiciously promotional, as if written by the vendor) and only a few trivial mentions, e.g., on sites merely listing various products. Msnicki (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some articles about Command Post (where this language originated) in the PC Mag magazine: 11 October 1988 p. 48 (review; 2/3 page), 16 January 1990 p. 145-146 (in cover story Best of 1989; half page).

Now Winbatch itself: PC Mag 24 October 1995 p. 40 (first looks; 1/4 page). Not much more. However, batch language in Norton Desktop for Windows should be the same as Winbatch (per PC Mag 24 September 1991 p. 36), so there could be some plausible redirect target (NDW is covered in the Norton Commander article, a phrase about its batch language could be added with the mention of Winbatch using the above reference). Pavlor (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is helpful. The first look at Norton Desktop has a section under the heading, "Norton's new batch language", with the claim that "Wilson Windowware's $70 shareware program Winbatch is identical to NDW's batch language, and WinBatch includes a macro program that's not available in The Norton Desktop for Windows", that's the only mention and it's so trivial I don't think it's particularly helpful in establishing notability. The first look at Winbatch 95 is more promising. This source is signed BS (presumable Barry Simon) and while it's only 5 paragraphs, it does include some clearly secondary opinions, e.g., a remark that "While more than adequate for basic operations, WinBatch 95 is unable to record anything more complicated than straight keyboard input." If a second, hopefully, better source could be found, I would be willing to retract my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my intention was to propose a redirect target as such a niche language may be of bordeline notability. There is also some coverage in DOSWorld, No 21, May 1995, p. 67 (3/5 of page: More power for Windows) - available on archive.org. Pavlor (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are many Google Books hits, but they seem to be mostly ads for the product in 1990s PC mags. Nonetheless, there do seem to be a few more substantial mentions of the technology, e.g., this. I don't know if this coverage rises to the level to allow us to write a verifiable article on the product. I'm not convinced the Wilson Windowware product is the same as the Norton Desktop for Windows batch language: it would be a little surprising for Norton to use a shareware product in this way. I'm reluctant to delete given that this seems to be a product that has seen decades of use. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nine from Aberdeen

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

This article has references.. but none of the secondary sources are about the book? The second paragraph ("Nine From Aberdeen also includes many rare photos from private and government collections, as well as charts and diagrams. The hardcover edition features a dust-jacket cover modeled on..") sounds very promotional. There's a lot of text and maybe some of it could be used in other articles, but this article doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed the article was created by User:J Leatherwood and the book was written by Jeffrey M. Leatherwood.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most in-depth coverage I could find was [12] in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that this book was really covered anywhere or in enough depth to be seen as notable. It probably doesn't help that it was put out by a publisher that some would consider to be predatory, as any that might be interested in the subject would likely not want to attach their name to such a controversial publisher even via a review. That's an aside, though. Whatever the reasons for there not being coverage enough to establish NBOOK is met, this book is not notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this looks like it was created by the author, I just want to note that this isn't anything about the book - the publisher being controversial or the lack of reviews doesn't mean that the book is bad, just that it doesn't pass the current guidelines for book notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to establish notability of the book. And article is almost entirely a summary of content. Btw.TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brent Cross Shopping Centre. Although a straight redirect was not considered, the contents is entirely unsourced and what little exists can be retrieved and merged if appropriate sourcing can be provided. Either way, a redirect is the ultimate end result. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Cross bus station

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

Non-notable bus station with nothing indicating any notability for this bus station to be on Wikipedia. Just to add clarification, when I was nominating this page for deletion, my intention was to request this article to be merged rather than deleted completely. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brent Cross Shopping Centre as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 02:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brent Cross Shopping Centre. It is a notable aspect of that topic, but it has limited (although not zero) notability independently of that. This is so obvious I'm unconvinced the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: My intention is for a merge, not a complete deletion but I don't know where else to send it to if I want it merged. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers (WP:PM) Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As suggested above a merger with Brent Cross Shopping Centre would seem the best way forward. Dunarc (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per suggestions above. Ideally this should be a merge although the article is completely unsourced so there needs to be some further discussion about what content to merge. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deji Afolabi Ayanleke

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A BEFORE search only brings up results in other wikis. No evidence of SIGCOV. Princess of Ara_(talk) 08:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making Space (disambiguation)

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

WP:TWODABS. The hatnote at Making Space should be sufficient. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely G14 or some other criteria applies here? Sean Stephens (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created the dab page (via WP:BOLD) because I found two similarly-named articles while copyediting. My understanding of a disambiguation page is to inform the reader that there may be more than one article in Wikipedia with that (or similar) name, which is the case here. If a user searches for Making Space, doesn't it make sense for Wikipedia to inform them that there is more than one choice, and allow the user to easily select the one they want? Truthanado (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there's only one article and there's a hatnote on that article that links one to the discography page where the similarly-titled album is mentioned. So it accomplishes the same exact thing without the need of a dab page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime broadcast by AT-X

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

Wikipedia is not a TV guide, I fail how to see this passes WP:NLIST. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. This would be better suited as a category. Jumpytoo Talk 02:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A category already exits at Category:AT-X (TV network) original programming. Link20XX (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dr. Universe (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium Bus Stand Palakkad

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

Non-notable, unremarkable, ROTM bus stand; sourcing consists of two pieces of news related to its demolishing and rebuilding — fails WP:GNG / WP:NGEO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, additional sources have already been added since the deletion nomination. There appears to be significant coverage from multiple sources in both English and Malayalam, and scope for expansion of the article regarding the issues discussed in the PDF source and an access road to the station started in 2014 and still not finished. There is no need for something to be "remarkable" for inclusion in Wikipedia, but I believe notability has been established. NemesisAT (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have found additional sources, but unfortunately I'm not confident enough with the machine translation to be able to add them to the article. If someone who can speak the local language can check these that would be fab:
- https://janamtv.com/80160287/
- https://www.mathrubhumi.com/palakkad/news/palakkad-stadium-stand-1.3044690
I reckon someone with knowledge of the local langauge could really improve and expand this article. NemesisAT (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Bus stand has recieved plenty of coverage from sources like Mathrbhumi, the second leading national daily in Malayalam. I might be able to improve the article. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 14:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Palakkad#Road. Clearly not a suitable topic for an article. Geschichte (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a bus station not a suitable topic for an article? This feels a bit dismissive, as there are plenty of good bus station articles on Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any subject can be notable if enough sources exist that discuss it, as is the case here. And indeed we have some coverage of bus stations, so this article is not out of the ordinary, even though I must admit it surprises me personally. @Pillechan: Since I assume you speak Malayalam, could you take a look at the sources linked by NemesisAT above? They seem to give some background on why the bus station has received so much news (traffic congestions or something before the new construction). --LordPeterII (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hello LordPeterII. This is an important bus station in Palakkad district. It is a busiest station which is a central hub for bus transportation in Palakkad. The last time I visited it was undergoing expansion due to the high traffic conjuction. The sources give stress to these facts and the construction process of the new station. Thankyou. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 05:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillechan: Thank you as well, then I understand them correctly. But what I really meant was: Can you please add the sources to the article? You will better know how to write in the article what the news say. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Palakkad#Transport. Not sufficiently notable for its own article, but ok to be mentioned in merge target. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It had some good coverage, but merging this material might be the best outcome. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per Ajf773. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Draft:Palakkad KSRTC bus station into new Public transport in Palakkad or Palakkad#Transport per Ajf773. Bogger (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: As an uninvolved editor who has not !voted, I'm closing this as a keep. A merge proposal can be made if a keen user wishes to propose it, but the article has been in AfD for more than 1 month now, with not a single delete !vote, so it has to be removed from AfD. Dr. Universe (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved back to draftspace. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lemon

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

Non-notable bio article; lacking references. Has been returned to draft on at least two occasions previously. Quick search brings up little, if anything in the way of SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this page back to draftspace, with page-move protection and salting to prevent the creator from moving the page again without following the proper WP:AFC process. Bearcat (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aai Shappath..!

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia needs to be built on reliable sources, not IMDb and youtube.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FAILS WP:NFILM Nitesh003 (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has been unsourced since 2010.Ratnahastin(t.c) 04:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel de Benavides Library

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 16:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There isn't a lot written about this library, but I was able to find information to establish notability in secondary sources:[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Less reliable sources: [21][22]. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant and reliable sources are added. Pampi1010 (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the library has a long history which has significance outside the university. It is a repository of important Spanish colonial era documents as noted by third-party WP:RS.

Request speedy close as keep, as nominator Clearly, the rename has wrong footed me here. The Banner talk 09:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely a notable library. If I recall correctly, this library holds an original copy of Rizal's work and was covered by the news. HiwilmsTalk 09:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azari (magazine)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the backbone of WIkipedia is indepdent sources (which also need to be indepth and reliable, but those are seperate issues) we lack any such sources here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't find any in-depth coverage with reliable sources. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merkle Inc.

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

I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date are just the usual announcements and PR all of which fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominated a similar company Avian WE RPSkokie (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science of Success (magazine)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a user from the United States, I'm not familiar with what searching methods would be best for topics of the Middle East, but google searches aren't promising. Google searches giving me nothing but self-help articles not about the magazine (shocking, I know). All citations are used not for sources but as mini-bios for staff of the publication. Again, though, it could just be that I'm in the west and sources running in certain countries and continent may be more easily findable in those countries than where I live, so I'll change my mind if secondary sources are provided. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Since the delete rationale is already weak, I don't see the need to keep this open further with two keep votes, one of which gives a reasonable indication that there is some coverage in English and that further SIGCOV probably exists in Farsi. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khandaniha

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sheer amount of results in Google Books and Scholar searching for Khandaniha+magazine (in English, not Farsi), convince me that this magazine (a popular one (per [23] and [24], with a forty year history) has SIGCOV.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough secondary sources available in Persian. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --MuZemike 15:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

305 (film)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep found reviews at DVDTalk [[25]], IGN [[26]], and Edge Media Network [[27]]. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
THIS... IS... SPARTA... sorry, had to. Strong Keep due to reviews from IGN, Oklahoma Gazette, Redfence Magazine, CHUD.com, Contactmusic.com, DVD Talk and Film Threat, a making-of feature from OC Weekly. The Miami News Times briefly gave an opinion of the parody in their review of another 300 parody, Meet the Spartans. Reputable festivals such as Palm Beach International Film Festival and the Fargo Film Festival list the film as running at their festivals. Yeah, definitely a film with coverage and a strong cult following. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above citations, those indicate this satisfies NFILM. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I truly do not know how I didn't get any of these citations when I searched. This clearly has significant coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 22:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to St. Agnes Academy (Legazpi City)#The Agnesian Publication. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Agnesian

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 15:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High school publications normally don't meet GNG unless they're for a pretty well-known school. This one might or might not meet that bar; it does seem to have a long history/have received substantial recognition. Per WP:STUDENTNEWSPAPER, if deemed non-notable this should be redirected, not deleted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Agnes Academy. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's a disambiguation page. Redirect to St. Agnes Academy (Legazpi City) 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. St. Agnes Academy isn't notable too. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete publications of high schools are virtually never notable, and nothing here suggests this is one of the extremely, extremely rare exceptions to that rule.12:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Delete: Another Philippine K-12 school paper that uses its own publication as references. HiwilmsTalk 18:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St. Agnes Academy (Legazpi City)#The Agnesian Publication. Fails WP:STUDENTMEDIA per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of the Philippines#Library system as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Archives and Records Depository

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 15:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also on the basis of WP:GNG. I don't think there's any reason why an archive of records would be notable. It's not even covered in media outlets. HiwilmsTalk 18:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to notability concerns. It's just a section of the UP Main Library. The University's own wiki has a more detailed article section about it as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of the Philippines#Library system. Fails WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Asylum films. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

30,000 Leagues Under the Sea

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage or other indications of notability per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: thankfully they decided to call it 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea so this was a lot easier to search for. Unfortunately, however, I found nothing to help this satisfy NFILM; only database entries (IMDb, Mubi, etc.), a tv listing, and passing mentions such as this. No reviews at Rotten Tomatoes either. Most reviews I found are/were hosted on blogspot [28] [29] (which is not a reliable source). I also found one that looks questionable, but that is not enough on its own. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Asylum films as yet another mockbuster from that entity. Nate • (chatter) 21:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have never actually determined that every commerically produced film is notable. That is where we would need to set the bar at to consider this film notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Asylum films - no indication of notability here. Coverage appears to be blogs, databases, shopping platforms, and library catalogs. As an aside, I once almost purchased this on accident at a hardware store thinking I was getting the real film. Hog Farm _Talk 06:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside comment Would that have been a hardware store where you save big money? I swore I saw it there myself. Nate • (chatter) 20:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naseer Sankranthi

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

Promo piece on a non-notable actor/comedian. Sources consist of one article (cited twice, so looks like two separate ones) which may or may not be RS sigcov; two citations of Facebook and one of a YouTube video which doesn't seem to exist; the rest are passing mentions. A search finds nothing of note. By the creating editor's admission in this edit note, the information mostly comes from an interview, which is primary and cannot establish notability.

Of the filmography, only Thatteem Mutteem seems possibly to amount to the sort of significant roles in notable films/shows mentioned in NACTOR, but NACTOR requires multiple productions, not just one. Most of the film work seems to consist of bit parts and support roles, as also mentioned in the article. Hence this fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The videos and facebook mentions in it exists. He is the person who has recieved 2 Kerala State Television awards. So its something great. Not only Thatteem Mutteem, Mammotty film The Priest, Kappela film, are some of the significant role. In the film Swarana Kaduva also he does a supporting role which has several scenes. The programs Laughing Villa, Comedy nights with Pearly Maney, etc. are some of his excellent TV programs. Oru Chiri Iru Chiri Bumper Chiri is a show streaming in Mazhavil Manorama and he is the jude in it. The program is a big hit that every week its videoes released comes in Youtube Trending. So taking that into consideration now this seems to be an important one in Wikipidea. Notability issue is solved by placing his awards, list of movies, interview placed as a reference. The information in this page is mainly taken from the interview given by Naseer Sankranthi to Manorama, which is placed as the reference in the Reference section.
~~Keep~~ There are Wikipedia pages of people who are not as famous as he is, then what is the problem in placing the Wikipedia page. A person who is doing a hit show for 10 years, who have recieved two Kerala State Television Award, who have acted in more than 20-25, who have did many TV shows, films, live shows, whose identity has been accepted by IMDB seems to be very less to be notable??
~~Keep~~ Now I have also added some other important TV programs which were done by him. So you may now decide the notability by considering that too....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonal Mathew (talk • contribs) 12:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sonal Mathew: you get one, and only one, !vote; I've struck out your additional ones. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The actor did not had any notable roles other than Thatteem Mutteem until 2016. Since 2016, he did some notable roles in multiple televisions shows and movies. Some examples of these movies are (with good notable roles) Adhyarathri, Swarna Kaduva, Welcome to Central Jail, Isakkinte Ithihasam, Kappela and The Priest. I dont know if there are any other movies in the list as I have only seen these ones. He is also the two times winner of Kerala State Television award. Is that a considerable here? I would also like to show some sources here which might help to establish GNG. [30] [31] [32] [33]. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 19:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Naseer is a very famous actor of Kerala, thanks to his popular acts in many comedy series, moreover he has won the Kerala State Television award as well.^[1] Rajeshbieee (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being a "very famous actor of Kerala" is not a notability criterion. Nor is having "won the Kerala State Television award". You may be confusing fame (of sorts) with notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Alright.. WP:ANYBIO says The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times, may be presumed notable. Naseer has won the Kerala State award twice and it matches the WP:ANYBIO point. Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Filmibeat/Onindia is generally unreliable in my eyes. The only real source I can find is this from the Times of India, and that is literally a 3 paragraph article. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now added some more content and more references to the page. Please check it..

References

^ "State Television Awards announced". The Hindu. 19 September 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2021.

*Delete: It fails WP:ACTOR as their is no lead role. Rest claims like best commedian award is not a big deal, Kerala State Television Award is not very significant. All these local awards are paid [34] it is an interview you can also say gossip, 0% independent. [35] This is an announcement, [36] just a name, not indepth about him. [37] nothing indepth related to him. clearly fails WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The Kerala State Television Awards is awarded to honour the people who are working in Television programs in Kerala. It is an initiative taken by the State Government of Kerala. A well versed jury decides the winners and is announced by the Film Welfare Minister of Kerala. The awards are handed over by them itself. So its just not a local award that is paid !!!![38][39]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" !votes are only weakly policy-based (if at all). Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla presented some sources which merit discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep The Kerala State Television Award seems to be a notable event in India if we're going by the results of this search, and the actor has appeared in several films and TV shows notable in India. However, they usually seem to be for extra roles rather than major ones, which is especially the case for the films he's in. Additionally, GNews searches only give me results that only mention his name as part of announcements for films, and they're normally from Filmibeat, a source of which I don't know its quality or reliability. The Kerala wins are making me veer away from !voting Delete, but not by a whole lot. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now added some more content and more references to the page. Please check it..
  - The addition of a feature from the newspaper Malayala Manorama that's about him strengths my Keep vote more. On a side note, if you want my opinion on the other sources, most of the Times of India citations are just brief pieces announcing him in films, which do indicate national interest but aren't necessarily SIGCOV, and some of the citation titles (Ref 10 for example) do not match the actual ones of the sources. Additionally I wouldn't use Indiaglitz, as the source has the look of a non-professional spam page, and Vinodadarshan as it is a self-written Blogspot website. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I striked my delete vote it is passing WP:ANYBIO as per the Kerala state television award. I analysed this award, this seems to be a genuine government award. The award was given to him based on his excellence in comedy. Every year around 10-15 people get this award as per the category like 1 director, 1 actor, etc. I got the evidence that they have not given awards to any child-related work as the jury was not impressed with the work. It means this is not a paid award. This guy is also passing WP:Basic, wp:nactor as he has a lead role in Thatteem Mutteem and the sources updated till now . Sonofstar (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now added some more content and more references to the page. Please check it..

Comment I updated my vote to keep from week keep as per the new sources shared. Sonofstar (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable award winning actor in Malayalam film and Television industry, acted in good number of films as comedian and character actor.

Apart from the references in the article, there are interviews and articles published by major Malayalam sites.

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.W.O.L. (2006 film)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing mention in this local newspaper piece about a woman who happened to be in the film is the best I got. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFILM. I found no citations to save this from deletion either. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is way past time we should remove all Wikipedia articles sourced only to the non-reliable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A-List (film)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 13:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM and GNG. I was unable to find any coverage outside of comprehensive film databases. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike IMDb we do not consider every film, actor, producer and director to be notable. This article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant Coverage found and not pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Only one keep !vote actually discusses the validity of the available sources. No reasons to delete beyond the original nomination have been offered despite 2 relists. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srinisha Jayaseelan

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

Notability is not inherited through available references. fails WP:GNG, WP:NSINGER GermanKity (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough notability clearly passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.157.195 (talk • contribs)

Comment Keep vote by ip address. suspected COI. GermanKity (talk)

Keep: Meets WP:NMUSIC no. 1 (due to articles in Times of India) and no. 10 ("Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" - for a number of notable films). Furius (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment Reference no. 1 is just a passing mention that is about the super singing competition. And there is nothing like Reference no. 10. However the all references fall under WP:NOTNEWS. GermanKity (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient coverage of sources. Rondolinda (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not shown Nosebagbear (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Mullsjö

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

This was formerly batch-nominated. This political party is only municipal in outreach, has no historical importance and no political consequence. It fails WP:GNG and every other Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition to the problems mentioned by the nom, no sources are cited, meaning that this party has not satisfied Wikipedia:Verifiability or WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters#Cylon-humanoids. Sandstein 06:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number Four (Battlestar Galactica)

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

Minor Battlestar Galactica character. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Previous AfD was a bundled mess (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Doral (2nd nomination) which I recently reonominated individually was just closed as redirect). All I see for him are just a (very, very) few mentions him in passing (WP:SIGCOV fail), and there is no discussion of him outside plot summary anyway. There is nothing to salvage here (since the entry is unreferenced, not counting one footnote to a TV series episode), so a redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters is best we can do here, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No discussion of substance in independent reliable sources. Perhaps a little of this can be merged to a list or other parent article. BD2412 T 06:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, surely. I don't understand why the nom didn't simply redirect it?—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall, Because redirects are a form of sneaky deletion without community oversight and I dislike being sneaky. PRODs are controversial enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mass media in Turkmenistan. There is no consensus to keep the article as-is. A redirect will protect the history if the article becomes viable in future. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkmenportal

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

This article does not meet WP:NWEB. Searching Google for Туркменпортал -site:turkmenportal.com and Тurkmenportal -site:turkmenportal.com does not produce any independent reliable source providing significant coverage of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mass media in Turkmenistan as a reasonable alternative to deletion per WP:CHEAP. I'm not finding any significant coverage either (nothing beyond trivial single-sentence mentions), although I'm glad to reconsider if some other sources can be identified. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Longnan riot

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA, especially regarding duration, depth and lasting effects. The coverage is limited to relatively short news articles from around the time of the event. The content can be covered in Longnan or 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, nothing to add to below comment, in my initial cursory search for the exact title I didn't see as much coverage as given below.

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Book sources and journal sources:
  1. Cai, Yongshun (2015). State and Agents in China: Disciplining Government Officials. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-0-8047-9251-6. Retrieved 2021-07-05.
    The book provides 390 words of coverage. The book notes:
    Understandably, the local governments' discretion is restricted when upper-level authorities intervene. An example is a riot that occurred in 2008 in the city of Longnan in Gansu Province, which caused heavy economic losses. [114 words of additional coverage]
    On the afternoon of November 17, around 100 peasants from thirty households went to the city Party committee and sought clarification from the city Party secretary on whether the administration would be constructed elsewhere. [92 words of additional coverage]
    Both the provincial government and the central government investigated the case by sending work teams to the city; however, the two authorities had different views on which officials should be disciplined. The provincial authority proposed that the major leaders of the Party committee and the government of the district where the riot occurred should be disciplined. This implied that city leaders would be exempted. Not surprisingly, the lower-level officials became resentful because the case was not directly handled by them but by the city authority. The central government, in contrast, believed that higher-level officials should take responsibility. Eventually, the city Party secretary was transferred and assigned as director of the agricultural office of the provincial Party committee.
  2. Rithmire, Meg E. (2015). Land Bargains and Chinese Capitalism: The Politics of Property Rights under Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-44533-4. Retrieved 2021-07-05.
    The book notes in a footnote (my bolding): "Examples of the dramatic escalation of these disputes abound in the Chinese press. One of the most famous is the Longnan incident, during which petitions to the local government from thirty people whose homes had been demolished evolved into riots involving thousands of people and at least seventy casualties." The footnote is for the sentences: "The process of land conversion is extraordinarily contentious and often violent. Chinese journals frequently report beatings, assaults, incinerations, and mass brawls among peasants and local leaders over land disputes."
  3. Hu, Jun; Shu, Xueming; Tang, Shiyang (May 2018). Boersma, Kees; Tomaszewski, Brian (eds.). "Analysis of Core Social Actors in Nine Types of Mass Incidents Based on Social Network Analysis" (PDF). Proceedings of the 15th ISCRAM Conference – Rochester, NY, USA May 2018. ISCRAM. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.
    The article notes: "Now taking the Gansu Longnan incident (E¹) as an example to construct the relation matrix. On November 17, 2008, more than 30 relocatees from Dongjiang Town of Longnan City petitioned for a visit to Longnan Municipal Party Committee. The relocatees heard about the rumor that the municipal government should relocate to Chengxian County, they worried about their interests would be impaired after the relocation of the administrative center. Around 20 o'clock that night, a number of troublemakers attacked the Longnan Municipal Committee, sixty-nine police officers, two police officers and three reporters were wounded. Troublemaker also smashed houses and vehicles. In this case, the social actors are casualty, family (relocatees), criminal, onlookers, media, rumormonger, police and official. The reporter and the police were injured, so a¹⁵ = 1, a¹⁷ = 1; some relocatees hit and smashed, so a²³ = 1; ..."
  4. Shao, Guosong; Xiao, Tangbiao; Yao, Shuo; Shen, Hongmei (2011-08-02). "Guiding public opinion in civil disorder". Journal of International Communication. 17 (2): 101–102. doi:10.1080/13216597.2011.589361. Retrieved 2021-07-05.
    The article notes: "On 17 November 2008, over 1,000 people attacked the Longnan city government in Gansu Province. The attack was caused by the dispute on the compensation and resettlement for demolition and relocation of residential houses between the government and local residents. As a result, 71 policemen were injured, 110 houses burned down, and 22 vehicles damaged (Zeng 2008). After the event happened, the Province’s Party Secretary Hao Lu issued a public statement, stressing that every citizen has a right to express their opinion and concerns through legitimate channels instead of violence or other illegal ways. On the other hand, he asked the local government to use individualized thought work to patiently and meticulously educate those participants not knowing the truth but wrongfully provoked by others. This showed that instead of simply relying on fear that might be instilled in the minds of the residents through the police force, the government tested the effect of individualized thought work. The main purpose of individual thought work here was to minimize the citizens’ resistance/opposition to the target issue on an individual basis. Within two days, the Longnan city government recruited 1,820 thought workers among all government units, divided them into 33 working groups, and then sent them to talk with thousands of participants one-on-one, face-to-face (Zeng 2008). The crisis was reportedly brought under control and city order returned to normal in a few days (Zeng 2008)."
  5. Jihong, Mo (2011). "Legal Measures for Group Events in 2009". In Li, Lin (ed.). The China Legal Development Yearbook. Boston: Brill Publishers. p. 197. ISBN 978-90-04-18249-3. Retrieved 2021-07-05.
    The book notes (bolding added for emphasis): "In Gansu Longnan event in November 2008, Secretary Wang Yi (王叉) also avoided the public, and did not dare meet them. The Guizhou Weng'an “6•28” event that occurred in 2008 was also bred from the party's accidental death event and evolved into a serious emergency of beating, smashing, looting, and burning. Under the instigation of a small number of people, some lawbreakers made ambushed the police with mineral spring bottles, clod and bricks, and broke through the human wall formed by the police to beat and smash office equipment, burn down vehicles, and besiege the public security police and fire fighters who came to handle the event. The lawbreakers continued to beat, smash, loot, and burn buildings of Weng'an county party committee and county government; the entire incident lasted nearly 7 hours, and the nature of it was tense. Although the event finally subsided under the leadership of Guizhou Provincial Party Committee and provincial government, it is unusual that such an event take so long to handle, and to cause such extreme social chaos and adverse effects in subsequent years. This is mainly because local leaders did not have the courage to face the public, and thus improperly handle the situation."
2. Sources published in 2008:
  1. Bandurski, David (2008-11-20). "The Longnan riots and the CCP's global spin campaign". China Media Project. Journalism and Media Studies Centre. Archived from the original on 2011-08-27. Retrieved 2021-07-05.
    This is extensive analysis about the media coverage about the Longnan riots.
  2. Jacobs, Andrew (2008-11-18). "Thousands Battle Police in China's Northwest". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.
    The article discussed the riots in detail.
  3. "Protesters in stand-off after day of clashes". South China Morning Post. 2008-11-19. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.
    The article discussed the riots in detail.
  4. Coonan, Clifford (2008-11-20). "Chinese police told to keep a lid on economic protests". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05.
    The article discussed the riots in detail.
  5. "China's Protesters". The Wall Street Journal. 2008-11-25. Archived from the original on 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2021-07-05..
    The article discussed the riots in detail and provides commentary about why the riots happened.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the 2008 Longnan riots to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A 2015 Cambridge University Press book notes that "One of the most famous is the Longnan incident".
A 2011 book notes about the 2008 Longnan riots, "Although the event finally subsided under the leadership of Guizhou Provincial Party Committee and provincial government, it is unusual that such an event take so long to handle, and to cause such extreme social chaos and adverse effects in subsequent years. This is mainly because local leaders did not have the courage to face the public, and thus improperly handle the situation."
The 2008 Longnan riots received 390 words of coverage in a 2015 Stanford University Press book.
The 2008 Longnan riots received significant coverage in the Journalism and Media Studies Centre, The New York Times, South China Morning Post, Irish Times, and The Wall Street Journal in 2008.
The riots have received continued coverage even years after the event in a diversity of sources including books and journals as well as in international sources so passes Wikipedia:Notability (events).
Cunard (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero:Attitude

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

Although released as a single, the song does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Sources like this and [40] constitute reprints of press release and [41], [42], and [43] are either gossip sites or fan blogs, and deemed unreliable per WP:KO/RS#UR. The sole chart position on the Gaon Digital Chart at 119 isn't impressive and the recording has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted or was released independently as a single is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. Ashley yoursmile! 09:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 09:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 09:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many K-pop CF songs exist, with nearly none of them having articles here. That would not be an issue if this song was notable enough (which it isn't), as its only claim to some form of notability is being the last release with IZ*ONE before their disbandment. Toyota Impreza (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Music Show

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

Article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for television shows. The notability claim on offer here is that it existed, which is not automatic grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about it to establish its significance -- but the sole source present in the article is the presence of an entry for one episode in an IMDB-like directory of film and television soundtracks, which is not a reliable or notability-building source, and even on a database search I can't find anything else. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marana Unified School District. ✗plicit 10:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MCAT High School

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

The single source proves that the school exists. Not that it meets WP:N or WP:ORG MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. The article has no independent sources; the only source cited is the school's own web site. And the text consists of less than one complete sentence of prose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marana Unified School District. My searches aren't finding any significant coverage, but a redirect to the school district's article is a reasonable alternative to deletion. See WP:CHEAP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Marana Unified School District. I'm fine with either, but this clearly isn't notable enough for a standalone article. Adamant1 (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marana Unified School District. This is an alternative High School with only 159 students. No independent sourcing exists. I would prefer that the article were redirected because of the connection to the school district. This is what we typically do in cases like this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Blake

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

None of the sources in the article seem to cover the subject in any depth and ~~most~~ much of the article is unsourced, in obvious violation of WP:BLP. From the article it emerges that he is an entirely ordinary staff writer/reporter with no special claim to notability. A Google search turns up a twitter account with a small amount of followers and not too much else. After the article has been deprodded, I now think it should be deleted for not meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't say most of the article is unsourced, just half of it, and this man is a writer for notable publications, including the Portland Mercury. However, that's not enough to establish notability. Coverage from independent sources establishes notability, and none of the article's cited sources do that, a majority of them just pages of sites he works for listing articles written by the author. GNews wasn't of any help. I put quotes in "Riley Blake", yet Google still felt the need to bring up results that only said "Riley's Blake Wesley", with no results about the journalist or even work by him. Overall, pretty good case for deletion. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmood.Husain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Significant disagreement about the quality and quantity of GNG-suitable sources exist, so for now this is the only close available to me. Daniel (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Beames

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

appears to be a WP:BLP1E in that he happened to take a nice photo - most of hte sources are interviews or blackhat SEO and the few that aren't are just feel good pieces without any meaningful substance. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the profile image, I would suggest someone attending a photography workshop would be capable of taking a photo like the one uploaded here. Regarding the news articles, some of those referenced are among the most trusted and popular news media outlets in Australia (Herald Sun, Fairfax Regional News etc). If there’s an issue with using photography websites that are profiling artists, I would prefer to see those queried or removed rather than the entire Wiki page. Further to this, in defence of this page's existence, numerous credible articles have been cited on this page that highlight the significance of Beames' work in capturing natural phenomena - some of which have never been photographed. If you value science and art, and recognise the importance of their intersection, I imagine you can see why it is worthwhile to have Wikipedia freely share the knowledge we gain from artists such as Beames. Perhaps I could have made that more clear in the way I've contributed to this page - some article references have now been amended to focus on the significance of these rare occurrences. Hans Unterf376 03:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep: I agree there are some citations to unreliable sources, but there are sufficient reliable sources IMO to justify the page. Incidentally I disagree with HansUnterf376's criticism of the photograph (which betrays a lack of awareness of wikimedia copyright policies etc). Cabrils (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a major newspaper feature your photograph is not the coverage of WP:GNG and Wordpress blogs, the Nikon website and the like aren't RS. This just isn't notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete man with a job. Tomaatje12 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not likely to ever be. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not even come close to meeting the bare minimum notability guidelines. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 22:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in accordance with the norms. Doesn't appear to be notable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. These 'Delete' suggestions lack detail and consideration for the significance of the artist's works. They come across very blasé and all appear to be US-based accounts with a potential bias against the relevance this photographer holds with an international audience, particularly in Australia and New Zealand where he clearly has a large following. There are many photographers with far less notable works or citations on their Wiki page so it seems odd to single this one out for deletion over an opinion that internationally-celebrated works are not "notable". Would be very disappointed to see a page like this removed entirely. As a previous user noted, Beames has captured rare natural phenomena - some of which have never been photographed before. ‘’’Rodger4664’’’ (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC) — Rodger4664 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

After reading this comment I re-reviewed the sources. While some of the sources are not significant or are altogether non-existent, it does have 4-5 reliable independent significant sources and should be considered notable for that reason alone. I'm recanting my proposal to delete the article, it should be kept. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 17:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: then some source analysis is warranted, please

Which few sources are the most reliable and what depth of coverage do they offer on the subject?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:43, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are just barely enough to suggest that he is a bit more than a run-of-the-mill photographer. Only one person has even attempted to make an actual argument as to why the article should be deleted, and everyone else has merely said "not notable" and left it at that. I question whether those people even read the article. Mlb96 (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a simple source assessment to explain the depth of coverage of the most reliable sources I found:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Science Times	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is entirely about Josh Beames.	✔ Yes
The Standard	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is about Josh Beames's photography efforts.	✔ Yes
The Standard	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is about a time when Josh Beames photographed natural phenomena.	✔ Yes
Baltimore Post Examiner	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is about a time when Josh Beames photographed natural phenomena.	✔ Yes
Film News Daily	Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published.	Article is about a time when Josh Beames photographed icelandic glaciers.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 01:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PR driven PR. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources identified in the table are not good. They are either PR or indiscriminate local puff. Overly promotional language. Excessive focus on Nikon. Straight out advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News articles talking about a rare natural phenomonem that occurred locally and was captured on camera by a career photographer is not "puff", it is relevant and significant. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 00:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to enable further consensus to emerge in relation to notability and quality of the sources, that is: Do the available sources provide significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm grateful for FormalDude's analysis of the sources. I agree that some of the sourced articles are strangely written, but I can't find anything in any of them that would suggest they are sponsored, advertised or self-submitted that would eliminate them. Some of them are industry publications (or are in sections of the publication about art/design/etc.) so it's perhaps not surprising that they would talk about Beames' products. In terms of significance, the Standard article leans on the trivial side (and is local coverage) but the rest are more comprehensive descriptions about Beames' work and life (and aren't local publications). I agree they're not New York Times quality coverage, but they are nonetheless independent, reliable and third-party. That's enough to meet WP:V. I think we have to lean on the side of keeping here if the sources are examined closely enough. I agree this is a borderline case but there's not enough to convince me that WP:BIO is not met. Deus et lex (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on FormalDude's source assessment, this satisfies GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thiis editor was canvassed. duffbeerforme (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A more accurate source analysis of those ones in the above table. duffbeerforme (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Duffbeerforme
Science Times	PR credited to author of questionable existance.	Advertisement is entirely about Nikon and Josh Beames.	✘ No
The Standard	Based primarily on comments from Beames.	Local photographer does something run of the mill. Local rags makes a big deal about it. Indiscriminate local puff.	✘ No
The Standard	? Third-party news organization. Not primary or self-published. No By-line	Local photographer does something run of the mill. Local rags makes a big deal about it. Indiscriminate local puff. One of a plethora of articles about the exploits of "Patient Eye Imaging" that the Standard has published over the years.	✘ No
Baltimore Post Examiner	PR written by PR agent	Advertisement is entirely about Nikon and Josh Beames.	✘ No
Film News Daily	PR credited to author with Joke by-line	Advertisement is entirely about Nikon and Josh Beames.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment - @duffbeerforme, I think you are a good editor but none of your "Independence" or "significant coverage" columns here have much credibility, really. It really feels like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to refute the source assessment done earlier in this AfD, but you are trying to justify that argument by discrediting the sources. As I mentioned above, the sources are not New York Times quality but they are independent (and only one is local) and there's enough to meet Wikipedia standards. Just because an article is largely based on someone's quotes doesn't mean it is not independent. Your comments like "Joke by-line" and "indiscriminate local puff" really don't help your cause at all here. I agree this borderline but I think we should err on the side of caution. Deus et lex (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Deus et lex:. "Joke by-line": What is the by-line? "Frankie Stein". Do you not see the joke there. "Independence": Maybe a bit harsh on the second Standard article. As for the three PR pieces, PR is never independent of the client. Who wrote the Baltimore Post Examiner article, PR specialist. What's your issue with my assessment? "significant coverage": I have three down as green, how is that not credible? As for "indiscriminate local puff", thats what they are. Typical of such local newspapers. Send us your news, your wedding photos, whatever, we'd like to publish it. I see you haven't raised the reliable column. Is that because you agree with my assessment? If you disagree then tell me about the editorial team at Film News Daily. Show me where there is any suggestion they have a reputation for fact checking. Let's check their about page [44]. "For native advertising" etc email ... Advertising designed to look like a legitimate article. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think @Deus et lex's point was that a source having a joking byline doesn't mean it's not relevant/independent/passing WP:RS (ex. this NYT article). And your generalization of the sources as "indiscriminate puff" seems more just based on you not liking local newspapers for some reason. One of the purposes of local news is to inform readers about local weather and nature, and that is clearly what is going on in most of the sources here.

I admit it does appear that the Film News Daily source may not be independent. But both of the Standard sources are totally acceptable, as is the Science Times source, and your arguments against them are quite weak. As has been mentioned, sources can be largely based on someone's quotes and still be independent. You speculate the Science Times author is non-existent, but don't give any explanation as to why. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 22:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude:. The NY Times by line, by Sabrina Imbler. Not seeing the joke. Just the real name of a credible writer [45] who is willing to put her name to the article.

OK, you concede the problems with Film News Daily. Let's take a closer look at Science Times. Start with the author. "Robert Carney". Any sign of him being a respected journalist. [46] [47]. Nope, not unless he is the baseball guy. So what has he written? Single figures on Science Times [48]. Articles like this blatant spam, if that doesn't set off your spam alert then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. And this. So all he has written is a few PR pieces on one website? Is it an actual journo or just a byline given to spam? Given Science Times is happily publishing these adverts without declaring their nature then they cannot be considered independent or reliable. Who are the editorial team? ? Where is their reputation for fact checking? [49] [50]. So scratch another one off your list. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next let's look at Baltimore Post Examiner. Look at the carbon copy nature of Film News Daily and the Baltimore Post Examiner one. Start with a one paragraph intro telling us how he is a prolific photographer and how one of his pphotos are significant "His famous photograph titled ‘Iceland Glacier Under Over’ is nothing short of a testament to his work ethic, talent, and dedication." vs "His shot titled “Lightning and Bioluminescence” speaks to his talent for capturing unique moments, which inspire others to love nature as much as he does."

Next a short story about getting that photo, making sure to link to his instagram.

Next four paragraphs on his development. "Josh Beames initially began his journey as a mere hobby- occasionally taking photos on his Iphone 4, before eventually progressing into a prolific, world-wide photographer." vs "Beames initially started his journey as a hobby, but it soon developed into so much more." next line "Being ‘lucky’ enough to be placed near the Great Ocean Road of Australia, as well as the Grampians National Park, Beames was allowed to frequently practice his craft and consistently develop his talent, skill, and arsenal of innovative techniques in a variety of complex settings. Consequently, he quickly progressed into the leading, eminent industry figure that he is today." vs "Being fortunate enough to be located near both the Great Ocean Road of Australia and the Grampians National Park, Josh practiced and evolved his many skills and techniques in a variety of complex settings and environments and, eventually, developed into the world-class photographer that he is today." next line "Through his fascinating work, Josh Beames aims to help preserve the beauty and complexity of our planet as much as possible. In order to achieve this, he ensures he is always accurately illustrating the gracious and novel nature of the beauty of our planet; portraying the common day to day environmental problems currently threatening our environment; and actively incentivizing his viewers to make as much an effort as possible to preserve the beauty of our planet." vs "Through his photography, he quickly realized the extent to which he can help preserve our planet by depicting the fundamental environmental problems that our planet is currently facing; portraying the diverse, yet unique beauty of our nature; and actively incentivizing his viewers to make an effort to preserve our planet." Both then finish off the section with a meaningful quote from Josh.

Next section titles, "Partnering up with Nikon Australia" vs "Becoming a Nikon Z Affiliate". Next section "Final Notes" vs "Final take". "Josh also covers a significant amount of property, real estate, and wedding settings, a fact that he has credited as a source of his exceptionally wide experience-related expertise." vs "Aside from landscape photography, Josh also covers a large number of weddings, commercial estate settings, and properties. Consequently, he has an enormous amount of experience-based expertise."

These are not intelectually independent, they follow a PR script. So scratch another one off your list. All your left with is the local paper. It's not me not liking local newspapers, I just regonise their nature, having lived in a small town with a local newspaer, having known people who get regulary featured, having known the true nature of "achievments" reported on. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can understand that reasoning. That leaves two reliable sources ~~which technically is not sufficient, so as it stands the article can be deleted.~~ ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 03:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two reliable sources is enough, Formaldude. And Hans Unterf376 makes a valid point below. Deus et lex (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Per WP:GNG, a minimum of three good sources is typically required.~~ ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Formaldude, have you read the policy? I quote from the page you linked: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". The reference to three is from a further link to someone's essay that says generally three or more is enough to rebut a claim for lack of notability. It's not policy. Deus et lex (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my bad. Good then, I think it does pass. The two discussed sources are significant and reliable. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 12:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is only one source left in your table, tep articles from them but still one source. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Duffbeerforme:. I don't think it's fair to refer to the Herald Sun as a local paper. In 2017, it was the highest-circulating daily newspaper in Australia and getting coverage in this publication multiple times is very much a legitimate achievement IMO. User:Hans Unterf376 (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never called the Herald Sun local. It wasn't in Formal's table. As for those articles, As someone stated above getting your photo published in a daily newspaper does not make you notable. As for the "articles" themselves they are on the trivial side with "The road to awe and wonder" coming in at a whopping 61 words, both complete with Instagram plug. Neither amount to significant coverage about him. And given the nature of the industry, unlikely to be independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm going with weak delete because the sourcing is poor. I can't find links to the two bare Herald references, and the Baltimore Herald Examiner is actually an LLC blog. The photos are pretty, but I don't see there being enough for an article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo de Manila College Glee Club

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

Promo. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The choir is a subject in a paper and a newspaper, and has its own segment in a book. It has won several awards: [51], [52], [53] and [54]. I found some sources about its various concerts: [55], [56], [57], [58] and [59]. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:BAND (not sure if choirs fit this criterion). ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO with sources presented by Astig. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The improvements made by ASTIG make this article meet the WP:MUSICBIO standards. Pahiy (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be nice to see that back in the article instead of on this page. The Banner talk 20:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per compelling evidence of WP:HOAX 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Church International

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

I'm not sure whether this article is a hoax or just non-notable with a bunch of implausible claims, but either way deletion is appropriate.

The article has no reliable sources that support its main claims. As of Special:PermanentLink/1011888507, the article has thirteen citations:
- References 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 13 go to its website or Facebook page
- References 4, 6, and 12 are to "blastingnews.com". While it's unclear exactly what sort of editorial control this has (see this RSN thread), the particular articles read as excessively credulous of some very extrordinary claims (e.g. that Afghanistan has a large population of this one obscure progressive Christian sect).
- References 5 and 11, while reliable, don't mention this church (both allow snippet view on Google Books)
- Reference 9 might look usable at first glance, but it's a Huffington Post blog post, and one written by the founder of the church.
A WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any additional sources (though the name is so generic that it's hard to do, given the apparently unrelated organizations sharing its name)
The article subject has unusual ties to other suspected hoaxes.
- It supposedly runs the Arnulf Seminary of Theology (current AfD here); see that for why I suspect that to be a hoax.
- It, like Arnulf Seminary of Theology, shares a PO box with an alleged medical accreditation body International Association of Therapists & Medical Doctors (IAAT) (current AfD here)
The article creator, OnSpeech, also created Government of Rhodesia, which was recently deleted as a blatant hoax

Unlike the others mentioned above, this might be real but non-notable, so I'm unsure if this qualifies for G3. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty certainly also a hoax, though with fringe denominations the normal spiritual word salad makes it hard to tell. For our purposes it’s an article about a Facebook page with 1.2 million (possibly bot) likes that makes far fetched claims based on its own website and another unreliable source. I hope the creator of these articles is deriving some entertainment from watching us discuss them, as it would be a shame if they felt they’d just wasted their time. Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion This was article was written bei User OnSpeech who is a family member and suffering from a severe mental illness which is progressive and let’s him more and more do things he shouldn’t. Unfortunately he still can formulate rather well, but his mind is most deeply disrupted. I can’t get into more details since this is public and I am acting under my real name (with a minor change). How disturbed my xxx OnSpeech is you could observe when he wrote the most crazy content about an African country just recently. I learned about all this today and here (as already in other discussions) I can only express the most sincere apologies in the name of the entire family and the caretakers. OnSpeech even created fantasy websites for institutions et al. which we then deleted and deleted... - Since this escalated now so severely we will end his free access to the internet and delete his account as soon as somebody pls. tells me how so that I can tell the caretaker. As to the content: I know for sure that this church exists, but I am also sure that what OnSpeech wrote about them is from dreamland, fantasy. You would do this church a favor by deleting this nonsense of OnSpeech’s fantasies as quickly as possible. Thank you and sorry again! Klaus Bells (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above account and the original creator, OnSpeech have both been blocked as socks of each other. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - elaborate hoax Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That this hoax has existed more than 2 years is a mark against Wikipedia. Although we have hoaxes that have existed over 18 years, but that is a different story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above: hoax. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 01:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per compelling evidence of WP:HOAX 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arnulf Seminary of Theology

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

I am confident that this article is a hoax.

The article has no reliable sources that support its main claims. As of Special:PermanentLink/1012257259, the article has ten citations:
- References 1, 2, and 3 are just repetitions of the law that would govern the seminary; none make any reference to the seminary itself.
- References 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 go to various primary sources (its website, Facebook, a press release it put out, a database that seems unvetted)
- References 5 and 7 are to "blastingnews.com". While it's unclear exactly what sort of editorial control this has (see this RSN thread), the particular articles read as excessively credulous of some very extrordinary claims (e.g. that Afghanistan has a large population of this one obscure progressive Christian sect).
I cannot find any independent evidence that the seminary exists outside of Wikipedia mirrors and closely associated websites. The infobox claims that it's physically located in Massachussets, but it doesn't show up on Google Maps, which you would expect to cover an institution in a major American city.
The article subject has unusual ties to the Wikipedia article. The official website of this seminary (archive) links to the Wikipedia article with a giant button on the home page.
The article subject has ties to other suspected hoaxes. Note that the address given on its home page (P.O. Box 70573, Fort Lauderdale, FL) is the same as that given on the homepage of International Association of Therapists & Medical Doctors (IAAT) (current AfD here)
The article creator, OnSpeech, also created Government of Rhodesia, which was recently deleted as a blatant hoax

I believe this qualifies for a G3 speedy deletion, but I opened an AfD in order to leave a paper trail. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Part of a comprehensive hoax, but a hoax all the same. The only solid address for this purportedly Massachusetts-based seminary is a Fort Lauderdale PO Box with a Broward County phone number. Just for giggles, I tried the phone number, and got Some Dude (who sounded kinda peeved at being called at quarter to 5 AM) instead of any office. The Boston address is purportedly "Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill," which is pretty dern vague. WP:BULLSHIT is about right. Ravenswing 08:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the above. Athel cb (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete someone is putting a lot of time and effort into this series of elaborate hoaxes. I’m not really interested in why. Mccapra (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy deletion Also this article was written bei User OnSpeech who is a family member and suffering from a severe mental illness which is progressive and let’s him more and more do things he shouldn’t. Unfortunately he still can formulate rather well, but his mind is most deeply disrupted. I can’t get into more details since this is public and I am acting under my real name (with a minor change). How disturbed my xxx OnSpeech is you could observe when he wrote the most crazy content about an African country just recently. I learned about all this today and here (as already in other discussions) I can only express the most sincere apologies in the name of the entire family and the caretakers. OnSpeech even created fantasy websites for institutions et al. which we then deleted and deleted... - Since this escalated now so severely we will end his free access to the internet and delete his account as soon as somebody pls. tells me how so that I can tell the caretaker. As to the content: I know for sure that this tiny seminary exists, but I am also sure that what OnSpeech wrote about them is from dreamland, fantasy. You would do this institution a favor by deleting this nonsense of OnSpeech’s fantasies as quickly as possible. Thank you and sorry again! Klaus Bells (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC) (indeffed for sockpuppetry)[reply]

Speedy This... Now per WP:Hoax, WP:Hoax, WP:Hoax, WP:Hoax, and WP:Hoax... Did I say delete per WP:Hoax, yes I did. 👨x🐱 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxes like this reinforce my view that we need to make all new articles go through AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per compelling evidence of PW:HOAX. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Therapists & Medical Doctors (IAAT)

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

I am confident that this article is a hoax.

As of Special:PermanentLink/1029619812, the article had eight sources: four primary, and four secondary. I was able to search the first three sources, and none of them had "IATT" or any plausible permutation of the organization's name anywhere in the works.
The four primary references are all to the organization's website (archive), which has several troubling features:
- The entire website only has a single page, which would be odd for a real international organization with tens of thousands of members.
- The "white paper" they place prominently on their homepage is published through Zenodo, which is just a place you can upload papers, with zero editorial oversight.
- The photos of staff are firmly in uncanny valley, and the blurbs oscillate weirdly between first and third person
- There's a bunch of material from reputable sources that they just reproduce on their website, seemingly hoping some credibility rubs off on them
- They have a domain, yet their email is "iaat@therapist.net"
- Their "terms and conditions" and "privacy policies" are... extremely vague, unlike any others I've ever seen
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klaus Bells for additional evidence that may link the creator of this article to another account creating hoaxes.

I believe this qualifies for a G3 speedy deletion, but I opened an AfD in order to leave a paper trail. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vahurzpu (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the points in the nomination, and also note that the people behind it have a very American notion of what "International" means (it seems to be about as international as the World Series). The liaison for non-U.S. members has resigned on account of "irreconcilable disagreements". Athel cb (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question. Following up on the "liaison for non-U.S. members" before she resigned on account of "irreconcilable disagreements" (Dr. Carolina Diamandis -- the only one who seemed to have clear medical qualifications) I found myself at the article on Authorea. I was surprised to see how much like an advertisement it is. It was created in 2015 by User:Jace Harker, who also made a very high proportion of the edits (around half, at a rough estimate). On his user page, he says "Currently I'm the Director of Community at Authorea, a web-based collaborative writing tool for students and researchers. Authorea is a completely free service for Open Access writing, with a freemium model for private writing." It already said that in February 2015 (so it's not a new appointment), but I was under the impression that articles were not supposed to be created by people very close to the subject. Athel cb (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the alleged IAAT is an obvious hoax, before we even get to the article about it. Mccapra (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete In this case, dear Mccapra the situation was a bit different. As explained Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klaus Bells I wrote this article in good faith and with consent because this association is not a hoax, at least not when they helped my family member, user “OnSpeech”. However, it might very well be that this association is not notable enough for Wikipedia. This can be, absolutely. So given the entire context, I also agree that a speedy delete is the most clean solution. And rest assured, I checked everything earlier this morning. All of OnSpeech’s chaos will be cleaned up when the articles in question well be deleted. And I have enough to do than to be a truly active Wikipedian. So my sincerest apology for all chaos that happened. I just want to add that I write under my real name (with a minor change) and would appreciate when this family matter, even when it affected Wikipedia, would move into some archive or gets deleted entirely. For you all here this was inconvenient, for us it’s our daily real lives in a family in severe distress because of what I explained. Klaus Bells (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Above editor indeffed for being a sockpuppet of article creator. Ravenswing 16:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Level High School

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

Non-notable ROTM school, of which the article makes no claim of importance of noteworthiness. A search finds a few 'hyper-local' news sources with some coverage of the opening (one-off event of interest to the local populace only), and routine mentions of things like football matches, but no wider sigcov; hence fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG. I know WP:WPSCH/AG claims that high schools are "almost always found to be notable" — I'm arguing this is one clear exception. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BITE. The article is two days old. It comes with three references, which give significant coverage, two of which are clearly independent. That's WP:GNG even before other editors have opportunity to assist. It is non-profit so WP:ORG does not apply. You are right to quote "almost always found to be notable". It is a new build, it has one year group- it is not our job her to predict what our reader will find of interest. If you wish to improve the article- details of the architecture, details of why there was a need for extra capacity, details of the intake, including racial profile, some details of the context of education systems within the state. There is yet no details of the finances capital and yearly budget. Eventually the list of proposed programmes will need to be edited or selectively culled. We do not retain editors by jumping in so fast and erroneously. Finally there is an empty Talk Page where you can share your experience. ClemRutter (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, BITE and this article being two days old have nothing to do with each other, AFAICS. Moreover, I did a BEFORE search, and found nothing of substance, which suggests that even when this article is two weeks or months old, the subject will remain non-notable. And if it does later become notable, an article can be created later; it isn't our job to anticipate possible future notability. Regards, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG, as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The News & Observer (the newspaper of record in the Raleigh area) should have plenty of sources, and for high school-related articles "hyper-level" is 100% OK for notability and sourcing. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @WhisperToMe: Thank you for adding those N&O references. I don't know why my search didn't find them. I can't verify them, as I don't have an account, but I assume you have done so, and on that basis I'm happy to withdraw this nom. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DoubleGrazing: You're welcome! They are on archive.today and you can view principal appointed, school resource officer, and first football win WhisperToMe (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bovonto

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

Non notable company. lack of significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. GermanKity (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Krishan Dutt

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

No significant coverage outside of his death. Fails WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - Dutt was the Director General of the National Security Guard of India, so how you can say he isn't notable when he literally was in charge of the National Security Guard and led the commando forces during the 2008 Mumbai attacks is wrong. Ladislyzk77 (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Merely holding an important role doesn't automatically confer notability. I could not find any source that talks about his work other than news about his demise. I'm could reconsider my vote if WP:HEY RationalPuff (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ladislyzk77. BrendaJones54 (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources used are reliable. The article is notable enough to be kept.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you search for sources now, you would get the impression that all coverage of him concerns his death. If restrict your search to filter anything out prior to his death however, you still get a lot of hits associated with his role in the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Random examples: 1, 2, 3, but I'm getting pages and pages of hits. I haven't dug too deeply into the refs, but WP:BLP1E doesn't seem to apply, and I expect there would be enough there to support an article - in which case, this article needs improving, rather than deleting. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jeff Gordon in popular culture#Television. ✗plicit 03:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

24 x 24: Wide Open with Jeff Gordon

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

Non-notable television film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 02:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After doing a basic search I'm not finding any significant sources on the subject of the article. —FORMALDUDE ^(talk) 03:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeff Gordon in popular culture#Television Generic driver documentary otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 03:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeff Gordon in popular culture#Television per above. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per rationales above. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "State Television Awards announced". The Hindu. 19 September 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2021.

[1]