Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 09	September 11 >

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 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 13:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Environment Photographers Association

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, though someone who reads Japanese may find something I missed. No WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The association closed in 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20190125170823/http://www.theiepa.org/news/171215/article01.php Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources. Lagoyan (talk) 16:45, 15 September 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 but with no prejudice against a merge, which was even suggested by the nominator (just a reminder, you don't need to send an article to AfD to merge it). There is clearly a consensus against deletion so the article can either be expanded with more sources or merged to David Narcizo. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakuna

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible ATD is redirect or merge/redirect to David Narcizo. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has lots of good reviews to establish notability. Even if someone else has tagged the article for notability, the nominator still needs to do a thorough WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the refs you put in, needs a login. I suppose from a historical viewpoint, if they were popular, the article would have been worth keeping, but they were fairly obscure even back in the day. They are really quite good. The reviews are from blogs. They're is no mainstream reference amongst them, i.e. reliable. They're SPS sources. scope_creep^Talk 13:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Austin Chronicle does not appear to be a blog. Plus as the project has been inactive for years it is likely there were sources at the time that are now inaccessible or lost. NemesisAT (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to David Narcizo. There is no reason to have a separate article as the Narcizo article is rather short.4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 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. – Joe (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Tallman

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

Not finding any worthwhile reviews or significant coverage in the article or online. Edwardx (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this review and some references in books. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:19, 10 September 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 Comic Valkyrie. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Time Communication

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

Last AfD attracted little input. I may be missing Japanese sources, but I can see mentions but not enough to show it is notable. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comic Valkyrie since it is their only notable publication. I looked for sources but wasn't able to find much outside of press releases. Link20XX (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comic Valkyrie.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 18 September 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. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Women to the Top

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

A short-lived European project for a few countries that does not seem to have any encyclopedic value. Question mark over notability for over 10 years suggests this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Possibility to trim and selectively merge to Women in the workforce#Women in workforce leadership. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to pass GNG with the sources it already has (significant coverage from two major newspapers and evaluations from the Nordic Gender Institute and University of Gothenburg) and a very quick search for Swedish-language sources returns at least this and this which could maybe be added. And, so far, the article pretty much only seems to have Swedish and English sources - there'd probably be even more coverage in Estonian, Danish, and Greek-language sources. NHCLS (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--RamotHacker (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)*Delete Simply not notable at all.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NHCLS. Agree that the topic passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already in the article.4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 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. – Joe (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Arnold

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

~~Notability of this BLP is largely inherited from Arnold Ventures LLC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the references are to her (or to her and her husband collectively), rather than to the company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her wealth may have come from Arnold Ventures but what she has done with it has made her notable. There seems to be significant coverage of her in independent reliable sources. RicDod (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes WP:GNG based on the sources in the article which are largely about her work as a philanthropists; not the company. However, I would consider merging the article with John D. Arnold and re-naming the merged articles John and Laura Arnold (currently a Redirect). Given that their philanthropy and business are run as a team, it really doesn't make sense to split them into individual articles. But that should probably be discussed through a merge proposal not at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 18:52, 18 September 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 13:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srayra

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

I cannot find any sources about this place, or where it is located. It is not in localiban; http://www.localiban.org/jezzine-district Huldra (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Huldra (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the ar.wiki article names the village as “Soueira” not “Srayra” but I can’t find any sources for that either. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nobody has come up with anything. Mccapra (talk) 11:42, 10 September 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. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umantewena

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

No significant coverage that would meet GNG as required by criteria #2 of WP:GEOLAND. Participants in previous AfD mentioned that it appeared in historic pilot guides (similar to the current Sailing Directions source), but no sign of in-depth coverage has been produced. The relevant GEOLAND criteria haven't changed since 2015 but the practice of presuming named settlements to be notable has. –dlthewave ☎ 21:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : not existing settlement.--Arorae (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was it a settlement previously? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 15 September 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 13:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamvas Studio 22

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

Fails WP:GNG: All sources (except for #6, which is the manufacturer's press release) are technology review websites or forums, where the bar for publication is not relative to any inherent notability of the piece of technology being reviewed. Note that many of these pages can also fall under the WP:SPONSORED banner, where affiliate links are provided at the end of the article, or where the review is commissioned by the company that produces the technology in question. A search of other coverage of the device turns up similar results. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a product spec sheet, the kind of thing that gets obsolete very fast anyway. Article on its company Huion is thin, but could mention maybe one sentence on it. Would support a merge too ,but lean to just delete. W Nowicki (talk) 17:52, 13 September 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. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Canada Officiating Program

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

The Hockey Canada Officiating Program appears to fails WP:GNG since I cannot locate any independent sources on the subject. I have only found information posted on web sites directly affiliated to Hockey Canada, which do not satisfy reliable sources required for GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Canada is a publically funded organization and receives its authority delegated through Sport Canada. Certifications are governed by Hockey Canada, in a similar way to the PMP designation is governed by the Project Management Institute. Both are internationally recognized certifications. Perhaps it's better to rebrand the article as "officiating hockey" with a section dedicated to the certification process. however it can be expected that the Hockey Canada website would be the only source available as validation for the certification. jordanleblanc (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a new name on the article does not resolve the sourcing concerns. The information in the article is available only from WP:PRIMARY sources, and no secondary or tertiary sources have been found. Until the subject receives such coverage in neutral sources, it fails WP:GNG and should not be kept on Wikipedia as per WP:NOT. Flibirigit (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I did find two quality sources with some in depth coverage; one a peer reviewed journal article on the retention of ice hockey officials in Canada, and the other a magazine article about a journalist's experience going through the organization's training as a rookie referee. I don't have access to major Canadian newspapers, but I would imagine that the organization has coverage given its importance to ice hockey in Canada. See sources below. Also, the organization was originally named the Canadian Hockey Officiating Program according to one of those articles, so sources may exist under that name.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, Brian, Jimmy Smith, Heidi Nordstrom, and Tyler Ferguson. "Ice Hockey Officiating Retention: A Qualitative Understanding of Junior Ice Hockey Officials' Motivations in Canada." Managing Sport and Leisure 24, no. 1-3 (2019): 18-31.
Rosenberg, Elmer. "TWO MINUTES FOR FLAILING: As a Rookie Referee--at 52--I Soon Learned There's Nowhere to Hide." Maclean's (Toronto) 116, no. 41 (2003): 63.

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 13:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Strongko

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

no notable independent wrestled. Not enough coverage by reliable, independent sources HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:PW/Notability. ––FormalDude talk 11:46, 24 September 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) 00:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Saviano

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

Clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC subject is covered in many reliable sources including TaxHistory, NYTimes, Reuters, Bloomberg, AccountingToday, TEDx talk,BizJournals and many others. Riteboke (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and decline. No in-depth coverage of the person at all. Doesn't satisfy WP:NPEOPLE, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Below is my assessment of the current sources in the article.

Source analysis

"Employee or Contractor? Health Care Law Raises Stakes". The New York Times. 2015-02-14. ISSN 0362-4331.
Behind the NYT paywall. Considering my source assessments below, I'm not inclined to bother digging this one out. No matter what this article contains, it's only one source.
"48th Annual Conference of the USA Branch of the International Fiscal Association". IFA USA. 2021-09-09.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Schedule of sessions at a conference, which lists the subject as a participant
"The United Nations Centennial Roundtable | The United Nations Centennial Initiative".
Not a reliable source: No coverage at all. Schedule of a roundtable discussion, which lists the subject as a panelist. There is a bio--most likely submitted by the subject.
"INSIGHT: Why Tax Collection Remains a Challenge in Sub-Saharan Africa". news.bloombergtax.com.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. One-sentence quote of something the subject said.
"Jeffrey Saviano - EY Global Tax Innovation Leader". www.ey.com.
Not independent: This is the subject's profile page at their employer.
"Tax Analysts -- Transparency in State Taxation, Part 2 -- Legislative Process and Letter Rulings". www.taxhistory.org.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. The subject is quoted a few times, talking about a taxation issue.
Studies, New York University School of Continuing and Professional (2012-06-12). New York University Institute on State and Local Taxation (2012). LexisNexis. ISBN 978-0-327-18209-2.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. The subject's name is listed in the front matter as a member of an NYU advisory board. This appears to be the only mention of the subject in the book.
"Technology and Tax During and Beyond the Coronavirus Pandemic". World Bank.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Video of a live-stream panel discussion. The subject talks about financial data technology.
"How EY Launched an Innovation Program". Innovation Leader.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Video of a podcast, wherein the subject talks about launching innovation programs.
"Season 3, Ep.11: The Davos Talks, 2020- Jeff Saviano: How can we fight climate change with better taxation? | TEDxBeaconStreet from Better Innovation | Podcast Episode on Podbay". Podbay.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. Audio of a webcast, which includes audio of the subject speaking about taxation on fossil fuels.
"DIGI Co-hosts Inaugural Prosperity Collaborative Online Event". New America.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. This appears to be a synopsis of a past online panel discussion. The subject is listed as a participant.
"EY to hold FinTech Pitch Day for tech startups". Accounting Today. 2018-05-25.
Not significant coverage: No coverage at all. The subject's employer held an event for tech startups to make pitches to them. The subject probably participated, and is quoted in a couple sentences about the event.
"EY announces the opening of global EY Advanced Technology Tax Lab". ey-announces-the-opening-of-global-ey-advanced-technology-tax-lab.html.
Not independent: (broken link) A press release from the subject's employer, announcing the opening of a lab. The subject is quoted, saying something about it. The actual link is here.
"Using Multiple Void Patterns at Crime Scenes to Estimate Area of Origin in Bloodstain Cases – ACSR". www.acsr.org.
This isn't even related to the subject. This is an article co-authored by a different "Jeff Saviano" here.

—Scottyoak2 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are glancing mentions of him in several articles on tax policy and similar, I don't think it adds up to WP:SIGCOV. No sign of WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost nothing in GS, so not much impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the source analysis above. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:ANYBIO. I will add by saying that I have a subscription access to The New York Times, and the subject is only briefly quoted in the article. The article is not about him, and we don't count mere quotes as indications of notability or as significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 18 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulit TV

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

Article has been moved to draftspace twice in 24 hours. It has no references. Suggesting to Delete and Salt. Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sulit TV has its draftspace, but it was created at the article page. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Can't see any sources to qualify this article to meet GNG. Riteboke (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can easily be recreated if sources showing notability appear in future. Mccapra (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as per WP:TOOSOON. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Locked redirect to Cignal TV#Pay television It's probably going to come out...but looking at the product page, it's either an Android TV clone box or just another interactive TV platform that would be a miracle if anyone else supports outside Cignal and TV5. In a year this is likely done, and it probably won't establish enough GNG to have its own article breakout. Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cignal TV#Pay television per Nate's argument. A case of WP:TOOSOON. SBKSPP (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Currently WP:TOOSOON, recreate if meets WP:GNG. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, currently.----Rdp060707|talk 13:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article now has a reliable referrence. Myrabert01 (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources added there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: From zero to six sources since being nominated, this is worth another look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:HEY. Meets WP:GNG with sources added to the article by Myrabert and Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning above and newly added sources. Koikefan (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Seemingly passes WP:GNG now. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SBKSPP, Koikefan and CruzRamiss2002. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article now has multiple reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Bolton

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

Non-notable voice actor who never dubbed a single notable character. Not notable as a production staffer either. Mottezen (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral comment. He has a very long resume of parts, and is listed as a producer in some notable franchises. I"m confident he fails WP:SIGCOV, but not so confident that he fails WP:NACTOR (particularly since he has been a panelist at some regional anime conventions; and from what I can tell he has performed many recurring supporting roles). Not supporting keeping or deleting at this point.4meter4 (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the cast announcements which don't really establish notability and the marriage announcement, there's no other sources. Esw01407 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think they meet WP:NACTOR off of their roles in Psycho-Pass 2 and Death Parade, both of which seem to be more than minor characters off of their description and placement in the character list. Link20XX (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no knowledge of Funinmation but when I created Hei (Darker than Black) I managed to provide a small comment about Bolton's work with the English cast.Tintor2 (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in productions. Lightburst (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have any WP:SIGCOV. ––FormalDude talk 05:29, 3 October 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 13:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bandar Country Homes

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

does not satisfy WP:GEOLAND (housing development), negligible non-trivial sources to help improve the article Zulfadli51 (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 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. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Bolger Jr.

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

Non-notable sound engineer. Fails WP:ANYBIO because he was only nominated for an Oscar once. Mottezen (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for an Oscar, coverage in the LA Times. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lugnut. Winning Oscar and coverage in LATimes passes subject for GNG. Riteboke (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only one source was presented and being nominated for a single Oscar is not a WP:SNG. Still way short of WP:GNG and should be deleted based on available informations. Mottezen (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Lugnuts, with a reliable source of the subject's death notice. Since its subject has been nominated for an Oscar, seems notable to me, since they sound engineer on notable films. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Academy award nominee. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts Academy award nominee.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't need to pass WP:ANYBIO because the subject passes criteria 4C of WP:CREATIVE as an Oscar nominee.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 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. We have plenty of articles on stupider things, and clearly there's enough coverage of the relationship between Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, a relationship commonly referred to as "Bennifer," to justify retaining an article on GNG grounds. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bennifer

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

The closing statement of the last AfD for this article was Delete...As the article is about the relationship between the actors and only passingly about the term "Bennifer" itself, any encyclopedic treatment of the relationship can be included within one or both of the actors' articles. While the relationship is arguably notable (depending on the weight one gives the sources), our notability guidelines do not require that all notable topics receive their own article when it is possible that a broader article – e.g. the actor bio(s) – can adequately cover the topic as part of its broader treatment of the subject. Several editors participating in the discussion have proposed including any relevant information in the actors' bios instead of having a standalone article, and no argument appears to have been made to explain why that proposal would be either a bad idea or against policy.

I don't think that this revision addresses the issues raised in the AfD, but since that discussion was 10 years ago, I thought it would be better to bring this to AfD again. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Once notable, always notable. Plus it's made a strong resurgence: "Bennifer 2.0: How Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck got us talking again" (the freakin' BBC), "The Complete 19-Year Timeline of the Bennifer Saga" (Vulture.com), "Bennifer Is Back: A Complete History of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez" (Fashion). (The other three Horsemen of the Apocalypse should be along presently.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the last AfD ended in delete, it is yet to be determined that this topic has ever been notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is evidently an enduring relationship and topic and here's another source. The worst case would be merger to some broader page such as supercouple per policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been redirected before there, so I suppose that's something we could do. Still, it seems like an awfully silly thing to do in an encyclopedia, but then we treat rasslin' as if it's a real sport with competition. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect fails on WP:XY. Ravenswing 19:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This relationship and it's comeback in the recent months is pretty iconic, I don't see why keeping it is a bad idea. The article has multiple sources provided to back up almost everything written in this article. It has a lot of information provided that would just go to waste if it was put in something as broad as their bios or another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellotay (talk • contribs)
- You didn't sign, and you're not saying anything that has any basis in policy for keeping it. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since you didn't set forth a policy reason for deleting it, I suppose that's a wash. Ravenswing 19:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--that some of this trivial shit flying around gets written up in some publications doesn't make this notable. It's noteworthy that the Guardian article, for instance, isn't about "Bennifer"--it's about the people and their relationship. That it says "the original celebrity portmanteau" means very little, and there is no further commentary on it: it would, however, justify a sentence in portmanteau. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It "isn't about 'Bennifer' - it's about the people and their relationship"??? What else would it be about? The fact that the Guardian and the BBC still write about it nearly two decades after its coining shows plenty of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your name is not a joke, clearly. But thanks for the wikilink for "sustained", that was really nice of you. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Seriously? It's not merely that this is a heavily sourceable topic, it's that I wager we could put in a thousand reliable sources if that wasn't insane overkill, and that some of the coverage is "trivial" is a deflection that insults our intelligence at the least. That these elements might be pitchforked into the individual bios is true, but for pity's sake, you could say the same thing about just about any content fork on Wikipedia. If you're looking for a basis in policy, this is it: this is a notable, verifiable topic that stands on its own. Done deal. Ravenswing 19:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravenswing, I'm still unclear on what "strong keep" means. But anyway, "trivial", there's plenty of that in the society pages, and not using those to source material in Wikipedia is hardly new, and so I don't really understand why you are getting so upset. Obviously WP:N doesn't tell us that "Bennifer" is a notable topic just because it's used in many articles, and what you are avoiding is the fact that it is a word used for a relationship between two people--and there is no reason why that content can't be dealt with in their article (which wouldn't be "pitchforking", but rather "writing content") or, as indicated above, in an article on portmanteau. What you are proposing is an article on a word, the word "Bennifer", and, at the risk of clouding up the alphabet soup, that really would violate WP:DICDEF; if the article is about the word, it's a dictionary definition, and if it's about the relationship, it should be in the BLPs that are relevant to it. "Done deal". Drmies (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's so much wrong with this it'd take far longer to rebut than it's worth, but that you're using so much energy mocking just about every other Keep proponent says it all. Why does the prospect of this article surviving AfD bother you so much? Ravenswing 01:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic appears to be notable based on reliable sources, which is the bar for inclusion. Whether or not a topic should be treated as notable by society is beyond our scope. While this can be covered on the individual pages, I don't know who that helps; editors will have to maintain sections on two pages and readers may have to read both articles to get the information that they desire. The article name seems reasonable if there are not competing pages for the title on Wikipedia. If the title is the concern, the page can be moved to title such as Relationship of Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck. —Ost (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough media coverage, there is no harm in the inclusion of this topic. Mehmood.Husain (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG; unfortunately. Yes, it’s on a topic that belongs in a tabloid more than an encyclopedia. And yes it has lots of significant RS because our world is obsessed with celebrities.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 18 September 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 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvo 69

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

WP:BLP1E. WP:BIO1E. The event in which the subject had a major role, which would be the invasion, not the test, was newsworthy but not notable. A redirect to Indian cricket team in England in 2021 could be recreated if and when the event this person was involved in is found WP:DUE there and finds a mention. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usedtobecool expresses it well; while technically their notability comes from invading the pitch multiple times (multiple events), I believe this falls under 1E due to the narrow timespan and similarity of the events. Further, the news cycle on this was brief; there was no enduring notability, and so the appropriate decision is to delete this article. BilledMammal (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, as he is known for one thing that won't have lasting notability. Although he invaded multiple matches, the only real coverage is at one match. And he's not a notable Youtuber. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This guy will have no lasting legacy or impact on the sport. StickyWicket (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generated a brief spike in coverage, especially in India, but nothing to suggest there will be the long lasting coverage that is needed to justify an article so this fails WP:BLP1E. The volume of the coverage may justify a sentence or two in the Indian cricket team in England in 2021 article, so merge and redirect could be a valid ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP1E. Clog Wolf _Howl 09:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one is going to remember this guy in 10 years time and he is probably not going to do anything else notable so fails WP:BLP1E. Maybe a line in the article about the series as an ATD at best. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E not a notable youtuber and got coverage for invading only one match.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:08, 17 September 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 Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze. The page history is retained for anyone wanting to merge content and references. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Squeeze

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

Pretty much entirely original research and refbombing. Sourced to dubious or unreliable sources (including wikipedia articles). The vast majority of the sources do not mention gamma squeezes. Additionally, the article looks like a POV fork from short squeeze in several respects. Maybe the subject is notable (although IMO the subject's notability is not separate from short squeezes), but this version should be WP:TNTed. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It could be redirected back to Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze where the correct title currently leads to though I'd move the edit history there in any case. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Short squeeze#Gamma squeeze, and leave the history for a selective merge. A lot of the content needs a TNT deletion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:11, 24 September 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 13:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions made by Ray Kurzweil

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the article is almost purely cobbled together from primary source predictions and independent sources either confirming or denying the prediction coming true, usually without any reference to Kurzweil. We do not dedicate separate articles to predictions made by individuals, which incidentally gives this article a silly level of prominence (prior to nominating for deletion, it is a top suggested result when you type in "Predictions"). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no place for this vapid BLP on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The main article on this author already has a short section on his predictions. This article contains almost no sources outside of the works written by the subject.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 17 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach and footballer)

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

Notability is not WP:INHERITED. All the coverage of Jorge Fernandez in my WP:BEFORE is simply coverage of Leylah Fernandez with some extra facts about her dad. I could not find any reliable sources that cover Jorge Fernandez in depth. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom in that case. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless it can be shown he satisfies WP:NFOOTY. Two of the references state he represented Ecuador internationally. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless proof can be found that he genuinely did play internationally for Ecuador (I couldn't find any in what I consider to be reliable football sources). The two sources which make this claim don't look especially reliable and both make the claim very vaguely. It also seems quite unlikely to me that a player who apparently emigrated at age 4 to Canada (a country which didn't even have a professional football league at the time) would be called up to play for his country internationally, but that's just gut feel..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I remind you all that WP:GNG > WP:NFOOTY. Even if he does not qualify on football terms he certainly does on tennis coach terms. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also certainly meets WP:TENNIS for notability for coaches. Furthermore the football claim is made by The Times as well, and sources include L'Équipe and mainstream Canadian news. On top of that WP:INHERITED does not apply because there are also stand alone articles included about him. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably you mean WP:NTENNIS. That doesn't seem to mention coaches, could you clarify what the notability guideline for tennis coaches is? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why not WP:TENNIS? There are notability guidelines there; those for a coach depend just on the notability of the player coached. A one-hit wonder doesn't count, but our current presumption should that Fernandez isn't that. 99.13.228.225 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Clearly I didn't scroll far enough down to see that....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - BTW The Times source (at least the section I can read without subscribing) doesn't say that he played for the Ecuador national team or even that he played professionally, it just says that he "played for a string of clubs in Ecuador". Does the rest of the article say that he played professionally or internationally? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nitpicking here, but yes the others say professionally specifically L'Équipe does, as per the citation. Only two sources says says international so maybe he was in a youth team at some point. And no I did mean WP:TENNIS; Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Coach Abcmaxx (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - not convinced that the existing sources support the claim that he played international or even professional football, and the current sources are mostly not about him or don't look reliable, but he does seem to pass Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Coach and there's probably just about enough for a weak GNG pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest that the article be renamed to Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach), BTW, as that is what he is notable for being..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Coach, considering that then he would pass for a notability, though the article needs a clean up. I agree with ChrisTheDude with regards to renaming to suit what makes him notable , Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach). Ampimd (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see GNG really, however I don't see why we can't just redirect to Leylah Fernandez. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Abcmaxx and ChrisTheDude. Like Chris, I think the article should be renamed since that seems to be his source of notability, however borderline that may be. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 15:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep passes GNG and NTENNIS. He isn't notable as a footballer, so I believe his page should be moved to Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach) as per Ampimd.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fernandez played semi-pro soccer (football) in Canada per this. The article fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG as almost all of the coverage is devoted to Leylah, rather than Jorge (the El Universo article dedicates more ink to Jorge than is usual in these articles, but it's not really in-depth coverage). Perhaps, the article passes WP:NTENNIS? Jogurney (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above, there was a recent GNG quality reference recently, just looking at the Globe and Mail!. here. Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Abcmaxx and ChrisTheDude scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - probably scrapes by on GNG, and agree with move to Jorge Fernandez (tennis coach) as that is primary notability. Giant Snowman 15:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leylah Fernandez per Govvy above. If her dad should in time emulate Judy Murray, the redirect can be cancelled and the article developed. For now, though, insufficient GNG because he is known only as Leylah's father and, as the nominator says, notability isn't WP:INHERITED. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- terrible argument because he is her coach. That's like saying Sir Alex Ferguson is only well known because of Man U and therefore without Man U nobody would know who he is. There's standalone articles about him by the way so it's not entirely accurate what you've said anyway. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend who supports ManU and he has often said ManU would now be a tier 2/3 team but for Fergie. The fact is that Jorge Fernandez is only known because of Leylah and sources which verify his coaching abilities are currently below the level of coverage needed for GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you'll find that the article has standalone sources about him and it passes WP:TENNIS for coaches. And I'm sure your friend is a very good source that passes GNG, I heard Kent is full of football experts. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how Kent comes into it but, whatever, you need to read WP:SARC. Your Ferguson analogy is nonsense because he was famous before he joined ManU and there is no comparison between him and Jorge Fernandez – Ferguson is notable through his own efforts, not those of his offspring. Anyway, seriously, you need to deal with your dubious sourcing about football. First, the L'Équipe article doesn't mention football so ref#3 in the lead is false. Second, the final sentence is in no way verified by ref#11 – the only mention of football (as soccer) in that article is re two other people. Those claims amount to misinformation. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Article about former semi-pro footballer, who is now a tennis coach, which appears to scrape by WP:GNG. I think there is just enough to reach SIGCOV, but it's close. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 13 September 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. ✗plicit 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft End-of-Life Solutions

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

Non-notable niche business. No assertion, credible or otherwise, of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 02:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I’m not seeing anything that would pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Orangemike: @Mccapra: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the work of Eastmain in finding so many sources. I think it’s still pretty borderline in terms of in depth coverage but if I’d managed to find these myself I probably wouldn’t have voted to delete. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough for WP:NCORP and to withdraw the nomination. gidonb (talk) 21:45, 11 September 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 13:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anando Ashru (2020 film)

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

Non notable film, there are some passing mentions and primary sources but no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. The article was deleted previously, see Ananda Ashru (2020 film). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD of same content on a slightly different page name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. ~Yahya (✉) • 21:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick google news search doesn't show any coverage. Fails GNG. Riteboke (talk) 10:53, 10 September 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 13:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Life After Life (TV series)

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a television series that only just entered the production pipeline, and is not yet properly demonstrated as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, the base notability criterion for a television series is that it has been upfronted by a television network, and TV series are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles the moment you can single-source that production has started on a pilot -- but the only sources here are a single casting announcement and a glancing namecheck of this show's existence in an article about its lead actress being cast in an unrelated film, which is not enough coverage to claim that this would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass TVSHOW. So no prejudice against recreation if and when a television network actually announces a hard and firm premiere date, but just entering the production pipeline is not enough to make a TV series notable in and of itself. (And for added bonus, this was such a half-assed rush job that the creator described and categorized it as an American series even though the casting source clearly describes it as a British one.) Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ordinarily, I would suggest moving it back to Draft space, but since this is part of the article creator's long-running attempts at article-creation credit grabbing by creating essentially empty placeholders in Draft space (for a couple of extreme examples, see Draft:Untitled Universal Live Action Project and Draft:Untitled Pixar Animation 2023 film). The User Talk archives of their previous account are littered with G13 notices and the creator has been indefinitely banned from page moves, so there's no sense in rewarding this sort of behavior. --Calton | Talk 09:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:TOOSOON. Suonii180 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 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 11:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stefano (trainer)

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is extremely overdependent on primary sources that are not support for notability (e.g. his own work metaverifying its own existence, unpublished private personal correspondence with the article creator), and not nearly enough on reliably sourced analysis of his significance — but inclusion in Wikipedia depends on the latter, not the former, and if the article has spent over a decade tagged for that problem without ever being improved then there's no serious reason to give it even more time. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Bearcat. Not much left if you strip away the Primary sourcing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 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 Steel Panther. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stix Zadinia

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

DOesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG independent of Steel Panther. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Steel Panther. Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steel Panther. He's done a few other things but with minimal notice, and he is primarily discussed as a member of his main band. No need for a separate article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steel Panther.4meter4 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stoppomat

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

Exists, but doesn't appear to meet WP:N. After 12 years in CAT:NN, hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the references here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of RS to pass GNG is visible in the search link provided by Eastmain. Clearly no WP:BEFORE was done by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many german reliable sources available.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:59, 24 September 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sussie 4

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found quality RS in my university library. There are many performance reviews and other coverage in independent Spanish language publications over the last 20 years. I don't have urls to give as I am viewing articles through university resources. See the following sources as a small sampling of refs.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Aburto (August 31, 2010). "Canciones mexicanas inmortales a ritmo de rock". El Diario La Prensa. p. El.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) -Concert Review
Nancy Gutiérrez (June 19, 2020). "Inyección de optimismo". CE Noticias Financieras. - Review of online streaming concert
Ben-Yehuda, Ayala (May 2, 2009). "MALT ROCK". Billboard. 121 (17): 12. Not the main subject; but a review of a concert in which they were one of several bands
Aburto, Gonzalo (September 12, 2010). "Himnos Mexicanos En Rock: Los Clasicos De La Musica Son Reinterpretados Con Distorsionadores". El Mensajero. Music included within this article on classic Spanish language rock songs

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References seem adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 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. The summary argument by Extraordinary Writ explains why deletion has consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Baus

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC; has no WP:SIGCOV on his career and has been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years, so let's resolve this. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just trivial mentions. No in-depth coverage. Fails WP: POET Mehmood.Husain (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOET.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Likely passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC based on his faculty bio at Regis University where he is the current Assistant Director and Faculty Advisor for the Graduate Fine Arts program at the university; a post which probably meets criteria 5 at NACADEMIC. The 2011 win of the Colorado Prize for Poetry for his book of poetry would seem to meet criteria 4c of WP:NAUTHOR. Here is a magazine interview. I found all this in a very cursory BEFORE search without seriously looking, but I would be very surprised if an award winning poet wasn't reviewed in independent RS and a named assistant chair didn't have significant publications with some independent published reviews of their work. All of this to say, have any of the delete votes seriously looked for RS?4meter4 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does "Assistant Director and Faculty Advisor" satisfy NACADEMIC #5. Is there even such a thing as a "named assistant chair"? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the SNG invocations above are tenuous at best (NPROF 5 "can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level", not to lower-level academics, while a single state-level award seems pretty far afield of the "significant critical attention" required by NAUTHOR 4c), so I'm inclined to apply the GNG. Since my pretty thorough search (Google, Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, Proquest, Newspapers.com) isn't finding anything that could truly be characterized as significant coverage, I'm not seeing a real basis for notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:04, 24 September 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 Joseph D'souza. ✗plicit 13:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dignity Freedom Network

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

Not notable and fails to meet WP:NCORP. Only 52 hits in Google News for "Dignity Freedom Network" OR "Dalit Freedom Network": half of the sources are blacklisted/unreliable and the rest do not provide significant coverage. GBooks hardly helps either. We already have an article on the founder Joseph D'souza. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Joseph D'Souza.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then just redirect.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I'm in concurrence with the nomiantion regarding a redirect, as this is a pretty obvious WP:NCORP fail. However, the nominator may benefit from reading WP:GHITS as to why Google hits isn't a good argument for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7, thanks. Will keep it in mind. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its founder Joseph D'Souza per above. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 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. Bigger fish to fry. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of rail transport–related periodicals

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

Fails WP:V (there's no source for much of this, some sections are entirely redlinks), is basically a typical example WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and accomplishes no purpose that couldn't already be done via Category:Rail transport publications. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, it doesn't fail WP:V because that policy states that sources are only required for quotations and controversial facts. And facts such as the existence of the famous Bradshaw's Guide are not controversial at all. Claiming that categories are the answer is absurdly contradictory because they are comparatively hopeless at satisfying WP:V because they don't support citations. This is all explained at WP:CLN which states that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." So this is just more driveby deletionism – another nomination of a long-standing list contrary to logic and policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of most of these entries is clearly verified by an ISSN and/or the linked article, and that they are related to rail transport is also not controversial as a whole. In other words, the nomination statement is factually incorrect. If there are any incorrect entries they can be removed without requiring deletion of the whole list, likewise any improvements to the organisation or changes to the scope of the list can be proposed on the talk page and do not require deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 10 September 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. – Joe (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Railways Africa

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

Cannot find anything to substantiate WP:GNG here (having an ISSN number is not "significant coverage" nor is it proof that this is notable). The publisher of this doesn't appear to be notable either (and doesn't have an article either), so there's no where logical to redirect to; and owing to the absence of sources it wouldn't make sense to keep it on the relevant list article (in the article see also section). So there's not much else to be done but to delete this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The continent of Africa is weakly served in many respects and so it would be systemic bias to delete this. It is generally hard to find detailed coverage of journals but we accommodate them because it is helpful to our purpose to maintain brief entries for sources of detailed information such as this. See here for a discussion of the matter. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So again the same person compulsively voting keep on every of my nominations. WP:GNG is not optional; while WP:BIAS is just an essay and certainly doesn't override that. Something being a reliable source does not mean it's notable. And what you have found doesn't seem to be enough to meet GNG (being a two sentence mention without any kind of detail to write an article from), less so when the source of this information is "After a quick search on the Internet" (presumably, the same thing I did). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:GNG is certainly optional – it's not a policy and it plainly says so ("occasional exceptions may apply"). It was not created until 2006 and so Wikipedia got along fine without it for over 5 years. It is part of the creeping bureaucracy which is the reverse of policy per WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm halfway between @RandomCanadian and @Andrew on this. Andrew's argument seems to be that we should allow articles on journals/magazines/other-sources to have a dispensation from the requirements of GNG as they are the sources we use to support other articles, and WP readers should be offered further information about our sources within WP. I believe that (1) this might be sensible, but ought to be decided at a bigger forum than AfD on a single article, and (2) if so, it should only apply to journals etc. that genuinely are sources, not to everything that might conceivably be a source. I do not know whether statistics exist on how often a particular journal has been cited in WP, or whether such a thing is technically possible. In effect, Andrew's argument comes down to "This magazine is not the subject of secondary sources, but it is used in tertiary sources (WP!), so it is notable to WP readers"; this requires proof that the magazine is used in tertiary sources, proof analogous to the normal requirement for secondary sources. I think??? Not sure if any of that makes sense??? Elemimele (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding that we are more relaxed about sourcing for such topics arises from hearing editors like DGG talk in this vein. He was a professional librarian and so tends to look at things like impact factors and library holdings. Me, I just take a more commonsense view that we're better off having a stub about this periodical than not. Then, if we cite it we can link to it and so help readers understand its nature and standing. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG and as it stands sounds promotional. Can find no secondary sources discussing the publication. It is listed by neither SCImago Journal Rank nor Scopus - so no impact factor etc. A look here does not reveal any usage on WP either. The source provided by Andrew is not worth anything (someone in an unreliable source saying they once googled the magazine is not much of an endorsement). Not that it means much but my institution’s library doesn’t hold this in hard or soft copy and we have a large transport research area. Even with the most generous of reviews this doesn’t cut it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a trade publication, not an academic publication perse and is cited in the examples below. That and pragmatic common sense (WP:DEFUNCTNEWS), a publication that has existed for over 50 years and is cited in various peer reviewed academic journals, suggest it is more likely than not – notable. Though written sources are still required to be able to write an article. I enclosed some examples where Railways Africa articles are referenced in other articles.

2003 Railways Africa article mentioned in Transit conference
Thomas, David P. (2013-01-01). "The Gautrain project in South Africa: a cautionary tale". Journal of Contemporary African Studies. 31 (1): 77–94. doi:10.1080/02589001.2013.747292. ISSN 0258-9001.
Amadi, Henry (2016), Nyeck, S.N. (ed.), "The Governance of Concessionary Assets: A Review of the Partnership Between Kenya and the Rift Valley Railways Consortium", Public Procurement Reform and Governance in Africa, Contemporary African Political Economy, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 313–333, doi:10.1057/978-1-137-52137-8_14, ISBN 978-1-137-52137-8, retrieved 2021-09-10

~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great WP:BEFORE work here - unfortunately this small smattering of references to individual articles in the publication is too weak to persuade me. There is still a huge WP:V issue with using such weak sources justifying WP:GNG. Currently the article is two sentences neither of which can be verified with a secondary source. The phrase " the leading if not only publication" does not really give confidence in the reliability of this page and just sounds promotional. Without secondary sources talking about the publication we cannot even verify any of the information other editors are using to justify a keep vote. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson and Shushugah. If the claim of being "the leading if not only publication covering railways in Africa and the Middle East" is correct, it is important to keep this for our coverage of African topics. NemesisAT (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The present article is barebones and needs cleanup, but I believe the publication meets notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and we are not being indiscriminate if we keep the major publication in a important field of human affairs. the GNG is a guideline interpreting NOTINDISRIMINATE. The reason guidelines are called guidelines is because they are just guides to fulfilling policy. They have exceptions that do not require invoking via IAR. As it says at the top of the guideline box at the top of the GNG page, "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Making sure we have an article on the leading publication of a subject is not the usual case which we discuss here. (even policy is of course subject to IAR, of course, but we properly are very reluctant to use it, and there is no need to use it here). Consensus to keep is a sufficient reason. Incidentally, if we did want to find sources to meet gng, I would suggest looking in textbooks about operating or constructing railroads in Africa, some of which will discuss important publications. No Worldcat library has such a book. I did a thorough enough search to find 3 textbooks about railroads in India--but not Africa. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG - Just revisiting this discussion. I am not sure what you believe justifies this article circumventing guidelines. No one can provide any reliable sources saying this is a major publication in an important field. I could create a website and associated social media profiles for a publication called "African Railways" saying it started publication in 1953, publishes 7 times a year and is the leading publication in its field. It would be just as notable and only slightly less verifiable than this article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you could create one, but WorlCat would not include it [1]. nor would it show up in the catalogs of the libraries that hold it, and confirm the publication dates. Nor would i d GoogleScholar link to three articles in it [2]. You;re confusing WP:V, which is policy with the guidelines for when we make an article in it, we our practice has always been enormously wider than GNG., or we would have almost no articles ontrade magazines or small newspapers. WP is an encyclopedia , and an encyclopedia , among other things, is a guide to resources. GNG is a guideline, and we followguidelines onl hwen they're appropriate.

So to understand - the arguments for keep so far are:

WorldCat shows golbally 11 universities (at some point) hold/held this publication from 1992 onwards (from this we cannot verify the 1954 date)
Google Scholar shows that articles within the publication have been referenced 3 times.
That this is "the major publication in a important field of human affairs" despite no sources making this claim (not even the magazine's website!) so we should ignore WP:GNG.
It would be biased to not have this article

I bring up WP:V because without having sources to verify the article contents all we have it an ISSN and a title to which I say: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Or, we believed the promotional copy on the publication's website and do a bit of free advertising for them. To write the article with only verifiable information it would be: "Railways Africa is a publication with the ISSN 1029-2756. According to WorldCat it has been or is held by at least 11 institutions and has been references in at least 3 academic papers." Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. African or not, covering an important subject or not, what we need are independent sources on which to base an article (WP:V). As for systemic bias, that is a term often used loosely and, I think, incorrectly. Systemic bias is if we would apply different criteria to magazines from Africa (or articles about women, or minorities, etc) to make it more different for them than for European or American magazines to meet our criteria. Here the case is actually the reverse, if this were a magazine about US railways, most people !voting "keep" above would without hesitation !vote "delete". Systemic bias can be avoided if we apply the same criteria regardless origin. Unless sources can be found to verify what we write about this magazine, this should be deleted. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty You and I geerally, agree, but we cannot avoid systemic bias in covering publications if we make no allowance for the lack of availability in practice for most sources that might exist; that's one of the direct meaning of systemic bias: our geographically limited knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson, DDG, and Shushugah. At some point we have to step back and ask, which wikipedia is better? The wikipedia that allows content on reliable publications/media that we use as sources, but which may lack enough multiple RS on the publication/media itself to pass WP:N, or the wikipedia which deletes such content by maintaining rigorous adherence to our notability policies when it comes to covering this topic area? I would argue that inclusion of information about the sources we use creates better transparency for our readers in evaluating the content of the articles they are consuming. It is therefore a better service to our readers to include this content. As such, this is one of the few times at an AFD where I think the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and WP:5P5 should be routinely invoked.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Railways Africa has never been used as a source on WP? See my above comment. In which case, this line of reasoning makes no sense. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it as been called to our attention, maybe we should. This is an area where we need more coverage. The print is not easy to find, but most of recent material is online. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 18 September 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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 11:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles television stations

AfDs for this article:

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

Unusual list duplicates {{LA TV}} without imparting much new material. Page is orphaned. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% duplicative of the template; we have WP:NMEDIALIST which rules this out as an article (and should be revisited, as the 'Media in (community)' articles have been slow to update, magnets for fair-use violations, and no united article template). Nate • (chatter) 03:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CLN explains that lists, categories and other forms of navigation such as templates are complementary and so the existence of one is not a reason to delete another format. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NMEDIALIST overrules CLN in this use case; we have a template that shows the same information in a transcluded form across all Los Angeles television articles rather than this one which has no incoming links. Nate • (chatter) 04:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mrschimpf ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NMEDIALIST is essay-level, and for good reason. It may well be worth having these sorts of articles in our encyclopedia; we're not limited by paper space constraints and they provide valuable information to someone trying to use Wikipedia as a reference book for these things. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As noted, the entire article is duplicated by Template:LA TV, thus the data provided already exists on a much more scalable form. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Mrschimpf Unfortunately navigation templates are not rendered for mobile viewers. Always a good time to make some noise in T124168... 00:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC) ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. It's a useful navigation page. WP:NMEDIALIST is not a policy and does not have wide community support.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why isn't this part of Media in Los Angeles#Stations? If the low-power stations are added there, this can be a redirect to that page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:17, 24 September 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. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 11:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of television stations in the San Francisco Bay Area

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

We don't have any other topic overviews of TV stations by market in this style. The contents lack citations and duplicate {{SF TV}} and the various pages featured. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicated links THREE TIMES over and just not how we do articles any longer. Nate • (chatter) 03:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CLN explains that lists, categories and other forms of navigation such as templates are complementary and so the existence of one is not a reason to delete another format. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While generally true, [[WP:NMEDIALIST]] provides more specific elaboration ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMEDIALIST which explicitly forbids lists in cities by specific types of media. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NMEDIALIST is essay-level, and for good reason. It may well be worth having these sorts of articles in our encyclopedia; we're not limited by paper space constraints and they provide valuable information to someone trying to use Wikipedia as a reference book for these things. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article needs to be refactored into a SORTABLE list with columns for Network/Independent, defuct/active, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Estheim (talk • contribs) 23:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As written now, this is more of a topical overview. It's more like History of television in Atlanta, which is a big yiker too: it's lacking references badly. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How I'd organize it, albeit a lower quality example, is Radio in Guyana, where there's a general topic summary, then that sortable list that directs interested parties to read in detail. I think it's better for people who aren't enthusiasts but perhaps need a general idea for personal or educational purposes. Plus that makes coming up with sources easier and more tidy.

Checking again, I see that there's Media in the San Francisco Bay Area that also contains dupes of corresponding List articles. This is a very annoying problem because WP contradicts itself due to different editors managing and updating lists (and being totally unaware of other lists, a problem I experience frequently). There's a few different ways this could be handled, but if "TV in the bay area" is considered a significant enough topic, (sure, why not?) merge the TV section from Media in the San Francisco Bay Area into this page and change this from a list article into a prose one. That way any new additions to Bay Area TV would be directed right away to add it here only. Estheim (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. It's a useful navigation page. WP:NMEDIALIST is not a policy and does not have wide community support.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 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 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ÏCE Condominiums at York Centre

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

Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. A condo complex in a city with a surfeit of such. Brief mentions in reputable media such as The Globe and Mail re: its allegedly huge number of Airbnb units, but no in-depth coverage of the building or its architecture. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete If there were a number of articles such as that used to cite the claim that "the towers have become a symbol for Toronto's housing market crisis", there would be more of an argument for keeping this, but one use as an example is not enough to justify this, and what else I'm seeing is not especially important. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:other stuff exists. It's a lot bigger and more western than tons of other non notable buildings with articles. B137 (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is an instance of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, not a point in favour of keeping this article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building was nominated for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat Award for Best Tall Buildings Americas for its use of sustainable architectural design. That would seem to meet criteria 2 of WP:NBUILD. See page 267. Additionally, there are other sources in google books with coverage.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google mostly brings up articles about stuff happening in the buildings, noting about why they're notable. Toronto has lots of tall buildings, most aren't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of buildings get nominated for awards by industry groups. I do not think this project is notable. Alaney2k (talk) 18:18, 14 September 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.