Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 03	September 05 >

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 redirect to Dune (band). ✗plicit 00:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verena von Strenge

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

Fails WP:Notability. Hakken (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dune. Hakken, could you put more effort into your nomination text next time? Geschichte (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dune (band).4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 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 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. – bradv^🍁 23:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajapur Degree College

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

Cannot find enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:36, 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) 23:54, 4 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 per unanimous consensus and no objections to the article's continued inclusion outside of the nominator. (non-admin closure) Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Style By Jury

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

Doesn't meet WP:N and has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Possible WP:ATD could be redirect to List of programs broadcast by Cosmopolitan TV (Canadian TV channel) or 2009 in Australian television. Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [1], [2]. [3], [4], [5]. Several sources here. It's also mentioned, albeit briefly, in a huge New Yorker write up on Reality TV from 2011. Variety says there was also a Russian version licensed [6]. matt91486 (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the sources above, there's a more detailed GNG source in the National Post's TV Times on Jan 8, 2005 here. Nfitz (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG as per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:22, 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 01:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luke James (English singer)

(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 Fashion (band). Redirect to Fashion (band) is a possible WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it sounds like he's had a really interesting life but the page doesn't meet notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above, he is not notable. Sahaib (talk) 15:35, 6 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 merge to Boomtown (festival). ✗plicit 00:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boomtown 2019

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

This page is simply a list of every single act which performed at the event, sourced to the organisers' own promotional website. It contains excessive detail which could be easily trimmed and then merged into the page Boomtown (festival). Also bundling Boomtown 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason (and, additionally, that it didn't take place). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect both to Boomtown (festival) after trimming cruft, per nom. Notable artists could be included, but the majority of them do not look to be so. Only one citation in each article is independent, and those two are merely Companies House listings of company directors. The 2020 article includes one other citation not from the organisers, onthewight.com, and it's basically an advertisement.

Comment: My sole contribution to either article was fixing 37 DABlinks in the 2019 article - 32 redlinks and 5 bluelinks. I might have added an {{overly detailed}} tag, but didn't. Narky Blert (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect both to Boomtown (festival) per above.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 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 23:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legal coaching

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

Advertising by Lawyer Geertje Tutschka. She already (unsuccessfully) tried to get that into the German Wikipedia, see [7] and advertised on her website with Legal coaching being in Wikipedia (Web archive, has been deleted since). Not well established concept, most sources are by Geerte Tutschka herself. Icodense (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had serious doubts about the appropriateness of this subject for Wikipedia ever since I quickly reverted Geertje Tutschka's first edits to English Wikipedia, which had many issues that I listed in my edit summary. Later I reviewed an early draft of this article and found it not to be of sufficient quality. I stopped paying attention to the article at that point, but I am not surprised to see it nominated for deletion. Biogeographist (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Absolutely, 100%, without reservation delete. This is an excellent example of how Wikipedia can be corrupted if we don't apply some discrimination to our editing process. The article was created by Geertje Tutschka, who is clearly part of a small group of people who are trying to develop a new "profession". This, however, is not what Wikipedia is for. We are here to document established services, not to provide support for tendentious attempts at legal "unbundling". (I note that there is a whole debate about the potentially corrosive impact of adding another layer to the legal process, but Wikipedia is not the place for this.) Ms Tutschka is clearly an energetic proponent of her business, as is shown by her not just writing most of this article, but also writing or being the subject of 17 of the 43 current references cited in the article (39.5%). Her nearest challenger as a subject or writer of references is Jo-Anne Stark, who is Ms Tutschka's North American equivalent; she appears in 9 of the 43 current references (20.9%). Unfortunately, not one of these citations is to an unbiased source. All of them are self-published - blogs, books from vanity publishers, obviously self-penned articles and interviews in the unvalidated trade press, and so on - or are irrelevant. The one professional-seeming source cited in the article is a link to the Legal Coaches Association... until you notice that the Legal Coaches Association appears to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the previously-mentioned Ms Stark. Literally every source for this article is unacceptable. Google doesn't provide any independent coverage. This article is just puffery of the worst kind, attempting to create background noise in favour of Ms Tutschka's business. If people wish to set themselves up as the doulas of the legal world, this is their choice, but we do not and should not put Wikipedia's name to a subject that has no significant independent coverage in respected professional sources. RomanSpa (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. While it looks well referenced, examining the sources more closely reveals that they are largely self published resources. Lacks enough significant RS to meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Russell

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

Apparently non-notable director. A WP:BEFORE search hasn't turned up any significant coverage, nor does any of the existing references. Further, they don't appear to meet the requirements of WP:Director; they appear to come close to #3, but as far as I can tell they don't meet the second condition of it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per criteria 3 of WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. Director of several notable films which have been widely reviewed in multiple independent RS; including Variety, Billboard, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and The Chicago Tribune among many others. Clearly a competent WP:BEFORE search was not done. See below for a small sampling of quality RS. I didn't even bother to check google books, but I would bet there is a considerable amount of RS to be found there is well.4meter4 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"OUTTAKES: THE SEQUEL RAILROAD TIES". Los Angeles Times. 24 August 1986. p. M36.
Maslin, Janet (26 February 1988). "Film: Wilford Brimley Stars in 'End of the Line'". The New York Times. p. C15.
Rich (February 24, 1988). "Film review: End Of The Line". Variety. 330 (5): 12.
Barbara McIntosh (3 April 1988). "Stony Reception In Little Rock: Film by Mary Steenburgen Draws Cries of Foul in Arkansas 'End of the Line'". The Washington Post. p. G1.
Smith, Sid (21 August 1988). "Video: A small film brings home fine acting". Chicago Tribune. p. M20.
Koehler, Robert (January 10, 2000). "Film Reviews: 'SKIP'S' LYRICAL TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE". Variety. 377 (8): 109, 113.
Kerrigan, Mike (Jan 1, 2000). "REVIEWS: MY DOG SKIP". Boxoffice. 136: 62.
Kehr, Dave (11 October 2002). "FILM REVIEW: You Only Live Once, But You Can Make It Last". The New York Times. p. E20.
Scott, A O. (12 Jan 2000). "FILM REVIEW: Fetch, Boy! Fetch the Wisdom of the Ages! Good Boy! MY DOG SKIP Fetch, Boy! Fetch the Wisdom of the Ages! Good Boy!". The New York Times. p. E1.
Rehak, Melanie (6 October 2002). "FILM: Falling for a Children's Tale of an Age-Old Wish". The New York Times. p. A15.
Lyman, Rick (21 January 2000). "AT THE MOVIES: In the Running For an Oscar A Clearer 'Window' Favorite Foreign Films Tale of a Dog". The New York Times. p. E22.
French, Philip (13 August 2000). "Pet storks, pet dogs and a turkey: OTHER FILMS". The Observer. p. D9.
"Charts: WINNERS Top 10 UK films". The Guardian. 25 October 2002. p. B31.
Manohla Dargis (1 October 2004). "With Many a Fear and Tear, Firefighters Prove Their Mettle". The New York Times. p. E12.

To lead; I haven't checked all of those sources, as the absence of links, despite links being readily available for at least some of them (for example: [8][9][10][11]) makes it an extended process that I am not currently willing to go through. However, as best I can tell, these all constitute significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of films that Russell has directed. If this is incorrect, please let me know.

Now, WP:CREATIVE#3 requires directors to have directed works that are considered "significant or well known". Note that in the context of the notability of people, "significant" is a higher standard than "notable"; a film or award can be notable without being significant. As such, establishing that the individual has created notable works, as I believe you have done, is not sufficient, and thus I don't believe that CREATIVE#3 has been met. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal You are obviously new to AFD. Criteria 3 states, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or (emphasis on the "or") of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; ". In order to establish notability for directors, we merely have demonstrate that their works (i.e. the films they have directed) have been the subject of multiple published independent reviews (because of the important word "or"). Basically, just three of the reviews above are enough to establish criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE. We have way more evidence than that. Further, I think the fact that his films received multiple independent reviews in both national and international press and were made with several major film studios, some of them grossing over 100 million dollars, clearly establishes that his works are well known. One does not get reviewed in The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc. without becoming well known. His works have been reviewed by major critics like Siskel and Ebert, [12], [13], (on TV no less). You aren't going to find anyone willing to go along with your line of reasoning. This was a poorly thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, just three of the reviews above are enough to establish criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE

I think we've got a disagreement over which section the "or" applies to. In my opinion, it doesn't extend over the period; they have to meet both the second sentence and the first. Think about it; if someone asks you to go down to the shop saying "Please get me some bread. In addition, please get me some cheese or some ham" - would you just get them ham and think you have satisfied their request?

clearly establishes that his works are well known

I'm not sure I agree with that; "well known" is defined as "known or recognized by many people", and I don't believe contemporary reviews or decent box office receipts are sufficient to demonstrate that. I believe we would need evidence of broad and extended impact, evidence that we don't have. BilledMammal (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think your interpretation of this policy is both novel and atypical of the historical interpretation of WP:CREATIVE at AFD; but we'll see what others have to say.4meter4 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 4meter4's comprehensive list, although I'd argue it's barely even necessary in this case, since having directed two individual movies with a >100M USD gross effectively settles the question for notability right there and then; of course people are going to write about those enough to satisfy ~~NACTOR~~ NDIRECTOR. If we were to decide to throw this guy out, we might have to introduce an additional CSD rule just to deal with all the other articles on creative professionals that would suddenly become equally ripe for the chop. AngryHarpy‍^talk 07:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that 4meter4 has demonstrated that Jay Russell has directed multiple notable films. However, I think you are a little mistaken on which policy applies; one might easily think that actors sit under WP:CREATIVE, but they actually sit under WP:ENTERTAINER (which is where WP:NACTOR links). The requirements of ENTERTAINER are considerably less stringent than CREATIVE, requiring just that an actor has held a significant role in two notable films. For the CREATIVE, however, it isn't sufficient to have directed one or even a hundred notable films (though if they had directed a hundred such films, it would be easy to prove they meet GNG); it requires them to have directed a "significant or well known" film. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, guess I shouldn't have typed this out immediately after waking up; I've struck and corrected to NDIRECTOR, which is the shortcut my sleepy brain was actually shooting for. Nevertheless: ...such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (...) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews – it has been demonstrated that option B is effortlessly passed. AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All good; fair enough. It seems you are of the same opinion as 4meter4 as to how the "or" splits that paragraph, but to me it doesn't seem logical to split it like that. I've crossed out the portion of the paragraph that becomes irrelevant when we assume "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" is true, with the first representing 4meter4's understanding of reach of the "or" statement, and the second representing mine.

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject ~~of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or~~ of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or

To me, the first sentence doesn't make any sense, though perhaps I have misunderstood their understanding of the reach?BilledMammal (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're all on the same page about the second option being the correct one, but even so, what's really the issue? a significant or well-known work or collective body of work makes for some highly subjective qualifiers, I've certainly never seen any of his films, but The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep alone is sitting at 12k monthly views as of right now, fourteen years after coming out – as far as I'm concerned, that's entirely sufficient to label it as "well-known". AngryHarpy‍^talk 08:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying; it seems I misinterpreted your position on this matter being the same as theirs, and I'm glad I can now understand the point you are making. However, I'm not sure I agree with it; while it is a decent number, extrapolating out from the top 1000 film articles by page views per month, I would put it at approximately the 35,000 most viewed film article (just outside the top 10%) and in my opinion we would be applying the classifier of "well known" too broadly if we accepted it as so on the basis of that. BilledMammal (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a little time for other people to chime in, but I think you'll find that the general reading of these rules isn't quite as, say, technocratic. I mean, we have an article on Keoni Waxman, whose main claim to fame is having directed a disturbing number of late-career Steven Seagall vehicles, one a bigger flop than the next one, and here's a YouTube video about the film I mentioned above, published in May 2021 and sitting at 2.5M views, seemingly considerably above that channel's average. I'm aware that I'm deep into WP:ATA-territory here, but the policy-based argument has been made and, to me, is airtight. Also, your observation above doesn't take the film's age into account, as new releases will naturally attract higher numbers and we don't have data from 2007 available, but that's mostly on me for highlighting the figure in the first place. AngryHarpy‍^talk 09:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NDIRECTOR per AngryHarpy and 4Meter4 ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:NDIRECTOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:36, 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.

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. ✗plicit 00:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Maginn

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Only source that could contribute to notability is in reference to a Twitter spat about antisemitism a few years back CiphriusKane (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Simon Maginn:

Just seeing this, my apologies for delay. Using Newspapers.com, and the various possibilities for naming, Vore shows up as: J. Michael Vore, John (Mike) Vore, John Michael Vore, John Michael Vore, John M. Vore, John Vore. There are similarly named people in Kansas and Montana. All citations about Vore relate to him living in Indiana or Chicago, Illinois.

I can list actual newspapers articles with each of this, if it is needed.

Informatics411 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. There are significant reviews of his books and plays offline/behind pay walls which I accessed. See below:

Lezard, Nicholas (29 Aug 1998). "A nose for a plot: As Good as it Gets". The Guardian. p. B11.
Patterson, Christina (26 July 1998). "He wants to be king. Good career move?: First Novels". The Observer. p. C15.

These in conjunction with the flurry of international press over his Anti-Semitic comments are enough to meet our notability standards.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saddies: Attack!!

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

Sources are from advertising by Modoka Studios or are only brief mentions. It fails WP:GNG. It has been tagged as such since May. Apparently it had been PROD'd and restored earlier without being noted in Talk, so my re-PROD was a procedural error, unknown to me before.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Yae4 (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero reviews on aggregator Metacritic, reliable or otherwise. Not even any user scores. Unable to find any non-primary sources or non-database entries with WP:VG/RS search. I've purged the article of all unreliable database entries or USERGENERATED sites. The remaining (possibly unreliable) Dutch source doesn't provide any in-depth coverage of the game, it simply announces a release delay (The studio is also Dutch). The creator of this (and the deleted/draftified studio article) appears to have a direct COI. -- ferret (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit for disclosure: I've blocked the article creator after a review of their deleted contributions showing years of promotional COI article creations and recreations. -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seconding Ferret's rationale. czar 05:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ferret. IceWelder [✉] 16:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ferret. 4meter4 (talk) 06:13, 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 redirect to Appalachian State University. ✗plicit 00:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian State University Department of Technology

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

Notability, lack of independent coverage Filetime (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Appalachian State University RPSkokie (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 23:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Appalachian State University. Any interested party can add any significant facts regarding this department there, but merging should not be a prerequisite of this close. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.
Redirect - to Appalachian State University.4meter4 (talk) 04:43, 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 keep. Consensus reached is that the article just barely scrapes by WP:GNG, despite failing WP:NFOOTY. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Schipper

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 22:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Took me a while to go through the sources and check over the article. I feel there is just enough there to just scrape by GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – going through the sources in the article that by title appear to discuss him in-depth: ref 1 is one sentence then a bulleted career timeline. Refs 2 and 10, duplicated is primary and written by the league. Ref 4 and ref 5 appear to be good towards GNG. Ref 17 is just a transfer announcement. Ref 18 also appears to be good for GNG. The remaining articles are routine coverage and not applicable towards a GNG pass or fail. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, despite failing NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG through fails WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as he has just enough coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes GNG per source analysis by Keskkonnakaitse.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 12 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 Draftify. Clear consensus that this isn't ready for mainspace. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)

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

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film)

This is a film that is scheduled for release in December 2021, and is being submitted repeatedly, in advance of its release. The good-faith assumption is that it is being submitted by ultras, fanatical fans. Animated films usually have ultras. It was created in article space in December 2020, and was nominated for deletion, and was sent back to draft space; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film). It was then submitted for review in June 2021 and declined, and then submitted for review twice in September 2021 and declined both times, and then copied into article space, and also submitted for review yet again. Creation in article space while there is already a draft games the system by making another move back to draft space impossible. So it looks as though we need another AFD. There is only one reference in the article, which is a long mention in collider.com of the film's teaser, which does not appear to be independent. A review of the references in the draft shows that they are mostly the same teaser for the film, or passing mentions, or interviews. There is nothing resembling significant coverage of the upcoming film. We know that it is an upcoming film. We knew that.

Some random editor will probably state that the film has completed production, and that films that have completed production are considered notable. This is a common but silly misreading of a badly written portion of the film notability guidelines. It reasonably divides films into three classes:

1. Those that have not begun production, which are not notable.
2. Those that have begun or completed production, but have not been released (which are the subject of controversy).
3. Those that have been released.

The guideline then goes on to say:

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.

This film has not been released. There is nothing in the advance coverage to the effect that the production is notable.

The last time that an article on this film was taken to AFD, the conclusion was to send it to Draft. Since there already is a draft, which is better sourced than the article, the article should be deleted, and the draft may be submitted for review when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best also discuss whether or not to delete page Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film). (And see Talk:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film).) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is the analysis of the sources in the article and in the draft:

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant
1 in article	collider.com	A teaser for the film	N
1	upi.com	Same teaser as in article	N
2	School Library Journal	Interview with book author	N
3	USA Today	Interview with book author	N
4	Coming Soon	A teaser for the film	N
5	Geektyrant.com	Another teaser for the film	N
6	Deadline.com	A long list of passing mentions, but was unable to find mention of the film	N	N
7	Twitter	A tweet stating that film will be released on 3 Dec	N	N
8	Animation Magazine	An advertisement for the film	N

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:Anthony Appleyard and anyone else: The draft should be kept, and should be submitted for review with reception information when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Delete - delete from main space, keep draft. Both the draft and the mainspace article are identical. Merging them together would make a mess due to overlapping contribution histories. Continue improving the draft until actual notability can be established. The creator of the main space version has created articles about other non-notable films, which I have also moved to draft, but could not do so for this one. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Delete redundant version and Salt per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. I think the nominator is overselling some of the potential notability issues here; particularly because this is a film within a notable franchise being produced by Disney which will inevitably receive massive amounts of independent RS shortly before and after it premieres. The relevant policy guideline here is WP:NFF; and contrary to what the nominator claims we do accept articles on films that have completed production but have not yet been released to the public providing they have significant RS because that is what is written into the official policy that has been endorsed through community consensus. That said, I'm not seeing any evidence that this scenario currently applies to this particular film.4meter4 (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Of course a brief mention can be made inside Diary of a Wimpy Kid ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify till it's release. As per WP:TOOSOON, I vote for draftify this time and Delete the mainspace article. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 20:15, 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 delete. ✗plicit 11:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Atiya

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are profiles and an appointment notice. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 22:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. You are only talking about the sources in the article. Have you even checked to see what sources on this subject are available? 195.36.35.251 (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA account. Just came in this morning. scope_creep^Talk 07:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm an inclusionist, and would like us to have articles for everyone, but until then we don't need a bias towards paid bios for random businessmen. – SJ + 03:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 12 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) 02:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV]. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:10, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hillendale, Delaware

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

Could not find any evidence of a community called "Hillendale" in Delaware. The closest thing I could find was a Hillendale Road and Hillendale Elementary School, ten miles away near Chadds Ford, PA. I would not recommend a redirect because of the utter lack of verifiability beyond GNIS, it doesn't even appear on topos before 2011 when they started using GNIS for labelling. –dlthewave ☎ 22:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found the road and the school in PA, as well as a museum (also in PA). Only thing I could find for a Hillendale in Delaware is an old 1960s newspaper advert for new three bedroom houses built in a Hillendale subdivision in the Mount Pleasant School District in Brandywine Hundred. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND has been held to not extend down to the subdivision level. Hog Farm _Talk 01:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hillendale is a road, not a community. Some developer may have built a small subdivision that he named Hillendale, but we would need more sources to show notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 06:16, 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. Consensus is that there are not enough reliable independent sources to write this article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PROIV

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

Last AfD had very low participation and was closed as no consensus. After 12 years in CAT:NN, I am really hoping we can get this resolved. It doesn't seem to have the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Luckily I just held my breath from an outburst that would have resulted in a further significant block. Perhaps indeed this was a deliberate WP:SEALION attempt, though I assume good faith it is not. The previous nomination, opened 14:12, 9 August 2021, was closed 09:22, 4 September 2021 by Daniel, some 15 hours prior to this nomination. Oh WP:BEFORE, is this nomination serious? I a shall arise and return to the battle of Spencer Dock possibly moving on to the Battle of Newcomen. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC) (striking Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Full disclosure, I am here because this was linked from a now-redacted RfA question, but I don't think it influenced my view, so I can participate fairly. At first I fully intended to advocate for deletion, but I think there may actually be a kernel of notability here based on the sources in the first AfD—one crucial point is that the subject is referred to as "PRO-IV" in much of its coverage (which sometimes OCRs to "PRO-1V"), which led me to miss the mentions of it. The actuarial paper provides some critical assessment by an apparently independent author comparing the subject to relational database engines à la Oracle. I can't find a way to access the ICE source and I'm curious what it has to say. But the article itself is in an awful state, borderline G11, and needs to be rewritten to clearly communicate what these sources are saying. The two sources in the article are useless for notability (material published by the product's developers, a press release). I don't think it's quite at the level of a WP:TNT, but would be fine with such an outcome. — The Earwig (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sellers, JMS; France, KG; Zytynski, M; Robinson, CR (1988-02-01). "Application of database management systems. Informal discussion". Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1. 84 (1): 167–170. doi:10.1680/iicep.1988.159. Mr. France presented a case study... [T]wo systems would be custom developed using a fourth generation language (4GL) known as PRO-IV. This language allowed programmers to ignore many of the technical aspects of data handling as it incorporates a sophisticated DBMS. The language gives substantial flexibility to accommodate changes and provides a wide range of facilities to reduce programming costs. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As with The Earwig above, I was drawn here by the attempt to canvass on an RfA. Similarly to them, I was up for seeking deletion, although based on my personal reasoning that it's often much better to tear up a bad article and start again than it is to try to reform it. There's a whole other discussion about how creating new articles gets more kudos on here than reforming bad old ones, but this isn't the time or place. However, again, like The Earwig, I think it just scrapes in under the line of WP:N - it's a very, very close scrape, but it's there. The article does need a root-and-branch rewrite, and might even benefit from being reduced to a stub of just a few cited paragraphs. So, whilst I wouldn't be heartbroken if it was deleted, I also wouldn't care if it was kept. To the closing admin: I'm so sorry. ◦ Trey Maturin 18:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to establish notability let alone write an article that isn't primary-sourced throughout.
Of the two sources in the article, one is an incidental mention in a developer's press release ("The development team has been selected from the cream of PRO-IV developers"), the other a list of compatible software published by PROIV itself. Of the two additional sources produced in the previous nomination, one is the passing mention of PROIV as a software component quoted above, the other [the "actuarial paper" linked above] a charming but idiosyncratic comparison of fourth generation languages ("I list the three approaches in order: ... 1. COBOL CODE GENERATORS. I have no direct experience of Cobol Code Generators, because I am not familiar with Cobol and have decided not to spend time on it."). Other sources merely list the name in connection with other, similar software [14] [15].
There are no PROIV instruction books [16], it's not taught in schools, and no reliable sources suggest that it's either technically or historically significant. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE, and WP:NPRODUCT. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like there are a few independent reviews of the product in computer magazines if one searches in google books; although mainly hits were adds. Here are a few [17], [18].4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source is relevant. The first describes an application written in the PRO-IV language by a different company; PRO-IV is mentioned in passing (). The second describes a word processing program written for Commodore computers; completely non-topical. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It was clearly a product in wide use in 80s and 90s just per the large amount of advertisements I found extending over a decade in a BEFORE search. This is one of those things that should be notable but isn't. With the lack of independent sources there is really no strong argument for keeping it.4meter4 (talk) 17:48, 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 redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Connect and salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Malibunas

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

Filipino reality television personality who appeared on Pinoy Big Brother: Connect. Lack of notability outside show. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. John B123 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and salt to prevent re-creation. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 22:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt as per nom and above editor. Fails GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The previous history is a redirect, so revert it back as redirect. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt to the above mentioned page by nom, definitely fails WP:ENTERTAINER. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt.4meter4 (talk) 17:52, 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 merge to Astrophotography#Post-processing. As ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IRIS (astronomical software)

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

Has some coverage, but not enough to make it notable. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searching this reveals only minor coverage and 1st page is mostly various user guides. Gorden 2211 (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Should be one of several bullet points in Astrophotography#Post-processing. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Astrophotography#Post-processing.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 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 redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso. ✗plicit 23:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lie Reposposa

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

Filipina actress and singer who appeared in Pinoy Big Brother: Otso. Lack of notability outside programme. Previously redirected per WP:REALITYSINGER. Fails WP:SINGER and WP:ENTERTAINER John B123 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and salt to prevent re-creation. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 22:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The reverted history is a redirect, so it should revert back as redirect. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: please keep this page because she is notable as a Reality Star on television, yes, she is not a notable actress yet because she doesn't have an outside show yet but she has guest shows on TV, it's Magandang Buhay and Gandang Gabi, Vice! and in the realtiy show that she joined was Pinoy Big Brother: Otso and she was the 6th placer. and in Your Face Sounds Familiar Season 3 her moniker was Pinoy Big Belter and she also had a Supporting role in the Televsion Drama Anthology and it was Maalaala Mo Kaya.

~~Nic Matinic (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)~~ sock[reply]

Redirect and salt to the above mentioned page by nom, definitely fails WP:ENTERTAINER. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: Otso. Fails WP:ENT per nom. Her stint with PBB and YFSF aren't good enough for her to establish notability. SBKSPP (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt per above.4meter4 (talk) 17:54, 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 13:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association of American Schools in Central America

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

School districts are generally notable, and this seems like kind of an equivalent. However, I couldn't find evidence of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Thia has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need of a separate article for this association for now. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was a WP:BEFORE search done? In just looking through google books it seems like there is enough RS to possibly pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. There is some quality RS within education policy literature and some coverage elsewhere. Not sure about the independence of the last source, but it is published by another party. See:

Fayad, Juan David ; Yoshida, Roland K (March 2014). "Making Mission Statements Operational: Perceptions of Principals from Tri-Association Schools". Journal of School Leadership. 24 (2): 336–356.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Ledger, Susan, Lesley Vidovich, and Tom O’Donoghue (2014). "The Context". Global to Local Curriculum Policy Processes: Policy Implications of Research in Education. Springer International. pp. 17–36.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Mott, Theron J. (2012). The American Sponsored Overseas School Headship: Two Decades of Change and the Road Ahead (PhD). Lehigh University.
Wendy Bosberry-Scott (ed.). The John Catt Guide to International Schools 2010/11. John Catt Educational, Limited. p. 519. ISBN 9781904724827.

Based on High King's analysis below; changing to delete.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 21 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) 23:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - was WP:BEFORE conducted? Almost certainly not! This nomination was launched less than 60 seconds after an edit to an unrelated article. Accepting that anyone could possibly have considered the availability of sources in that time is beyond common sense. Besides which, there seem to be plenty of available sources and the ones listed above would seem to suggest the subject meets WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an organization so WP:NCORP applies, not GNG. With regard to the commentary about WP:BEFORE - people really need to WP:AGF, the nominator may have conducted WP:BEFORE sometime in the past, perhaps last week and not necessarily just before this AfD. As to the references ... I've read them. None - not a single one - meets WP:NCORP (and makes me wonder how anyone who read the references could even say they met GNG for that matter) as follows:
- "Making Mission Statements Operational: Perceptions of Principals from Tri-Association Schools" doesn't even mention the topic organization (even though they are members of the Tri-Association) much less have WP:CORPDEPTH in-depth information
- "Global to Local Curriculum Policy Processes: Policy Implications of Research in Education" gets a mention in passing on page 33. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- "The American Sponsored Overseas School Headship: Two Decades of Change and the Road Ahead" gets a mention in passing on page 15. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- John Catt Guide to International Schools 2010/11 contains a profile which contains information from the organization's website with no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND.

Based on the the above references and my own unsuccessful searching, I cannot locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my vote on the basis of HighKing's more detailed analysis of sources. As for AGF, the barest assessment of this nominator's edits and track record is enough to confirm that it is highly unlikely that WP:BEFORE was conducted at some stage in the past, especially given that WP:BEFORE requires much more than a quick google search. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with High King's analysis of available sourcing Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DMMC Institute of Health Sciences

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

Exists, but I was unable to establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:19, 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 00:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Redmond

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

Has only two top tier fights (both losses) so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. All of the coverage is routine sports reporting, so the GNG is also not met. Sandals1 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 2 top tier fights, and has been released from Bellator meaning another fight when the promotion is considered top tier in 2022 isn't going to happen. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMMA.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Albuquerque (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and the spirit of WP:NFOOTBALL, his professional play consisting of 44 minutes for Rio Ave and one full cup game for Chaves.

The consensus is that a handful of games might not be enough to meet our guidelines. Some of them are linked here; since then the number of AFDs concerning this precedent have gone from around 50 to over 100. Geschichte (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps the guideline needs updating but for now, it appears this player passes WP:NFOOTY. NemesisAT (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ROUTINE coverage of appearing in 1.5 games does not meet WP:GNG. NFOOTY is merely guidance about which topics are likely to meet GNG, not a policy itself. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, passes NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who played in one match in a fully-pro league which creates a presumption of notability (NFOOTBALL), but the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG, so the presumption is invalid. I can't find any online English- or Portuguese-language coverage other than database entries (clearly not SIGCOV). Jogurney (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrsSnoozyTurtle.4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 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 keep. ✗plicit 11:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiew

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

It exists, but doesn't have the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passes GNG. The article should probably be moved to HIEW, as it looks like quality sources capitalize all the letters. I did find some RS in google books; all of which describe it as an essential and foundational tool for hacking which would seem to indicate some notability. See below.4meter4 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Szor (2005). The Art of Computer Virus Research and Defense. Pearson Education. ISBN 9780672333903.
Kris Kaspersky (2007). Hacker Disassembling Uncovered, 2nd Ed. A-LIST, LLC.
Reginald Wong (2018). "Tools of the Trade". Mastering Reverse Engineering: Re-engineer Your Ethical Hacking Skills. Packt Publishing. p. 139. ISBN 9781788835299.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 11 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) 00:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In dealing with a 11 year old questioned article, the first step is not to nominate for AfD, but to try using BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - beyond the subject passing WP:GNG, this nomination was launched less than 120 seconds after an unrelated edit by the nominator. In the intervening one minute, the nominator tagged it for notability. There's no conceivable way WP:BEFORE was conducted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hiew is an iconic piece of software which at least a generation grew up on and learned low-level programming. Andrej Shadura (talk) 21:18, 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. ✗plicit 12:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Bagsby

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

DOesn't appear to meet WP:N. Has been in CAT:NN for 11 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 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)} 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. According to his website he's been inducted into the Western Swing Hall of Fame, which if we can find an independent ref to verify he would pass criteria 1 of WP:CREATIVE. This website, tulsatvmemories, which is affiliated with the Tulsa World, documents one of his projects and provides links to several articles in the Tulsa World where he and his work are the main subject. Here's a more recent review in the TW. There's lot's of TW press on Bagsby going back decades which I can't access because of a pay wall, but can see in searches (for example [19]). All of this to say, he appears to be an important artist in Oklahoma with plenty of RS to pass GNG, and with the Hall of Fame induction should meet our inclusion guidelines for artists.4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 11 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) 23:57, 11 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) 00:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @4meter4: when I go to his website, it turns out to be for two people. The only claim about the Western Swing Hall of Fame is for Steve, not David. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for catching my error. Regardless, I think there is enough RS on David to pass GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2. The links I've seen are interviews, or brief mentions. I suspect 4meter4 is correct about more press behind the paywall, but one can't rely on unseen stuff. Given that I know very little about the Tulsa music world, I don't feel comfortable !voting delete, but can't !vote keep either. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - invalid nomination. This article was nominated for deletion within 60 seconds of unrelated edits to other things by the nominator. There's no possible way WP:BEFORE tagging, searches and discussions could have been conducted before this was nominated. Combined with the thoughtful case made above, I'm seeing no reason this should be deleted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not policy based rationale. scope_creep^Talk 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the sources already shared, I found this magazine article discussing a band Bagsby was involved in, though they no longer list him as a member. Regardless, I feel there are enough sources here to establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a blog. You seem to a have sceloritic understanding of what constitutes significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:SPS. scope_creep^Talk 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a blog. Oklahoma magazine is printed every month and circulated throughout the state. See below.4meter4 (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete These are poor reference that have been offered up for obscure person. The rest of the references look like blog and self-published sources. Why are these sources being offered up when they are not significant coverage? Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... scope creep the sources being offered up are all from the Tulsa World which is the major regional newspaper for the Eastern half of the state of Oklahoma. TulsaTVMemories is affiliated with the newspaper (according to The Tulsa World which links to the page in some of their articles on Bagby), and there are multiple url links on that page to articles on Bagby in The Tulsa World archives. Rather than copy pasting each url link to the newspaper, I thought this page was handy as a navigational tool to relevant RS in the Tulsa World. Clearly you did not examine the content closely or fairly evaluate it in your assessment above.4meter4 (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, I didn’t see the source you mislabeled as a blog by another user. Oklahoma magazine is not a blog. It’s actually a monthly magazine which is printed and is circulated throughout the state of Oklahoma; often available to grab for free in public spaces throughout the state such as public libraries, government buildings, museums, etc. See https://okmag.com/.4meter4 (talk) 13:53, 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aung La Nsang

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

Has no top tier fights and highest ranking ever by Fight Matrix was 34th. Neither is enough to meet WP:NMMA. Coverage is routine sports reporting and MMA databases, which isn't enough to meet the GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What the hell? Are you joking? Well, he may fail WP:NMMA but he is a national hero and heroic figure of Myanmar (Aung La N Sang is celebrated as a national hero [20]) and also a figure of Kachin State and Kachin people [21]. His own bronze statue erected in 2018 at the Kachin National Manau Park in his hometown of Myitkyina – see source, Aung La N Sang Honored With Statue In Myanmar. During the opening ceremony of the statue a huge crowd of thousands fans gathered [22].

Asia Nikkei – "As arguably Myanmar's most popular sportsman -- ever", "He's also one of the few Myanmar citizens with an international profile, given the country only began opening up to the outside world over the last decade.", "Aung La was the subject of unprecedented national attention in the lead-up to the fight with Russia's then-middleweight champion Vitaly Bigdash".

He was feted and honored by Myanmar's military leaders as well as de facto civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi and shown their respect on him [23]. How much do you need? Um?. Taung Tan (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided by Taung Tan seems to show enough to pass WP:GNG. (gotta say though no need for the hostility.) ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per Taung Tan and his sources - although he may not meet WP:NMMA, Aung La Nsang very much passes WP:GNG through being a national icon for Myanmar. You may be able to find more info on him using the alternate spelling of his name Aung La N Sang. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 10:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Taung Tan. Even if/ though Aung La doesn't meet NMMA, he doubtlessly passes GNG. Htanaungg (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Taung Tan's sources are enough to support to pass WP:GNG. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 06:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several of the sources mentioned are from the promotion he fights in and are not independent. However, several of the sources mentioned by Taung Tan are good and should be added to the article. There's also some similar type references in the article, though they're buried by the preponderance of routine sports reporting. The failure of Aung La Nsang to meet WP:NMMA is dwarfed by his meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Taung Tan. AryKun (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Taung Tan. Dr Lotus Black (talk) 08:34, 9 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 A Twist in the Myth. ✗plicit 00:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another Stranger Me

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATDs are redirect to A Twist in the Myth or Blind Guardian, but I think title is potentially ambiguous so could mislead readers. Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Twist in the Myth. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond Metal.de. SBKSPP (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Twist in the Myth.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 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 keep. – Joe (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

America's Public Television Stations

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Article has recently had many sources added. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 06:30, 11 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) 23:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, and probably WP:FLEXIBILITY. This isn't some corporation trying to sell stuff. This is a core (non-profit) part of the media landscape in the United States, arguably the media market that sets the tone for every other Western media market. There's no desire (from what I can tell) to promote the organisation; this is purely functional and informative. Their audience is the Federal Communications Commission and that organisation's decisions aren't going to be influenced by our telling people what this organisation does. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:34, 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.

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 Where We Land. ✗plicit 00:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I Want Is You (Damien Leith song)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG. Possible WP:ATDs are redirect to Damien Leith discography or Where We Land. Boleyn (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Where We Land. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Where We Land.4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 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 00:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Albert (writer)

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

Last AfD was closed as no consensus due to low participation. Reason given for nom was: 'Kept at AfD in a very different time for biographical notability. He's had a prolific career, but none of the projects appear notable. I can find no reviews of the novel for which he was a co-author nor any other indication he meets creative notability guidelines.'

The sources I could find were not reliable ones. Boleyn (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm just going to repost my comment from AFD #2, because nothing has actually changed here at all. Writers are not automatically notable just because their work exists; they need to show some evidence of significance (notable literary or screenwriting awards, etc.), not just verification of existence. But this features no indication of significance, and it's referenced 50 per cent to directory entries (IMDb, Yahoo Movies, the self-published schedule listing of a TV channel, etc.) that aren't support for notability at all — and while the other four footnotes are real media, three of them are neighbourhood hyperlocals and/or alt-weeklies (which would be fine for use if there were other, better sources around them, but are not widely distributed enough to carry a WP:GNG pass all by themselves if they're more or less all the coverage he actually has), while the Playback hit ([24], since it hasn't actually been linked in the article) is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a piece that isn't about him, which means it's also not solid enough to vault him over the bar all by itself. And furthermore, I can find no indication that any film called Hunt for the Devil was actually produced or released at all, as there's no film of that title listed in any of Scott Albert's, John McFetridge's or Michael Madsen's IMDb profiles. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 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 redirect to Yusufzai. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adokhel

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N, though I'm aware there are cultural and linguistic barriers. Nothing in other language WPs to indicate notability either. Has been in CAT:NN for 11 years; hopefully, we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an existing fairly large size Wikipedia article Yusufzai with 35 references. That article and the related template Pashtun tribes there lists Adokhel as a sub-tribe of larger Yusufzai tribe. I'll try to find and give some references at this UNREFERENCED article. In the meantime, the creator of this article and other interested people, hopefully, will share some info here – especially people with Pashtun background? Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this sub-tribe to its larger parent tribe Yusufzai. Thanks. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this sub-tribe to its larger parent tribe Yusufzai. No prejudice against recreation if an editor re-creates it with multiple RS cited in the future.4meter4 (talk) 20:10, 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 00:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Ataides

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

Non-notable MMA fighter since he has no top tier fights and has never been ranked anywhere near the world top 10. Coverage is routine sports reporting so the GNG is not met. Sandals1 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 09:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Butler

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He had zero fights for top tier organizations. The only coverage that could be considered non-routine is the reporting that he was leaving Wall Street to fight. I don't think that's enough to meet the GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 09:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May fail WP:NMMA, but I would argue it meets WP:GNG. Multiple articles, including the Wall Street Journal would pass as significant coverage. Weber1982 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weber1982 is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Papaursa (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:GNG as satisfied with multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the subject, per Weber1982. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA and appears to have retired from fighting. All of the significant coverage is about his quitting his Wall Street job to pursue an MMA career. That seems like WP:BLP1E to me because the significant coverage is about one event, he is not notable for anything else, and the event is not WP significant. These are the three conditions mentioned in WP:BLP1ENOT. Papaursa (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Papaursa's analysis.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maiju Suotama

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

She's a non-notable MMA fighter. She fails to meet WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights (both losses). The coverage fails to meet the GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1st Invicta fight is exhibition so isn't counted in top tier fights. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Taylor (fighter)

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under top tier promotion. Subject also fails GNG as the fight info are merely routine fight reports. Cassiopeia talk 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 20:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for either MMA fighters or boxers. Routine sports coverage doesn't meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has 5 five fights for Bellator MMA which is a top tier promotion I also understand page still needs more work haven't even finished working on it before a deletion was requested for it. Eerie Holiday (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Eerie Holiday Bellator was a top tier promotion from 2009 to 2015 - see WP:MMATIER. The subject has only 1 fight during Bellator was a top tier promotion which means the subject fail WP:NMMA. Cassiopeia talk 02:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 1 top tier fight. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 10:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He clearly fails to meet the notability criteria for either MMA fighters or boxers. In addition, there is no significant independent coverage that would show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:58, 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verde Pulgar

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. I could find no RS on this topic.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional article from SPA editor. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly just promoting that one person's neologism to get search hits. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 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. Consensus is that when accounting for WP:AUD, the sources in the article are significant enough to meet GNG. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbrook, Delaware

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

Although this article is more than just a stub, most of the content is either unsourced or cites the neighborhood Civic Association handbook. Newspaper results make it clear that this is a subdivision with insufficient independent coverage to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Castle County, Delaware. BD2412 T 21:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep insufficient Wikipedia:BEFORE. Development and the reasons for it (including early open space preservation efforts), are well documented and notable. Djflem (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete Delaware Place Names describes it as a suburban development, which is obvious anyway. The accessibility of non-trivial local content is not enough, and while this may be a relatively early case of a certain type of development, we need a source of national scope, such as a research paper on the subject, which establishes it as a notable example of same. Mangoe (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense: Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) is failed proposal. Wikipedia:AUD is the guideline. Museum archives are not trivial. And Delaware Place Names is correct in this case, and as such, is another good reference. Djflem (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Djflem and Wikipedia:AUD. Museum archives are significant coverage, and ultimately this in conjunction with the other sources notability is established.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. There are significant sources to meet GNG as well as GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:25, 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. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

René Geuna

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

He was a French fencing coach. I searched and couldn't find enough significant coverage to meet the GNG. As an athlete, he once finished fourth at a junior world championship but I found nothing to show he ever competed at the Olympics or adult world championships. The article is an orphan, which indicates a lack of notability to me. Sandals1 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added a few sources that I could find, talking about his method and the athletes he taught. He was active in the late 20th century so not easy to find sources for such a niche topic, I'll keep looking though. I also linked his article with his athletes, so the article is not orphan anymore. I hope this improved the situation of the article and can shed some light on his notability regarding fencing. Gyrostat (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Appears to be a notable coach who has taught multiple Olympians. With the sources added by Gyrostat its probably enough to just barely pass WP:SPORTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gyrostat above. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:56, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White Oak Creek Marina

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

No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly self-promotional and could easily have been prodded under WP:G11. Most likely fails WP:SIGCOV as well.4meter4 (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. zero gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional and not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:33, 19 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 00:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green Acres, Delaware

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

Run-of-the-mill subdivision fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Although the article is more than just a stub, it's sourced almost entirely to the neighborhood civic association with no significant independent coverage. The only newspaper results I'm finding are real estate listings and articles about the local swim team. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This wasn't hard to find: https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/life/home-garden/2014/03/19/green-acres-split-levels-reminiscent-of-frank-lloyd-wright-style/6611723/ tho the article in Architectural Forum in which the community is discussed doesn't seem to be on line, but is independent coverage. Djflem (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to pass WP:GEOLAND between the sources in the article and Djflem's comment above.4meter4 (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GEOLAND, has some architectural significance. Subdivisions are hit-or-miss but I think this one is notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GEOLAND. Djflem (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: most of these geostubs are nothing beyond a GNIS entry, but this seems to be fairly fleshed out and has a number of actual sources talking about the history of the place. jp×g 20:31, 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 keep. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Europeanism

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

It's unclear what "Pro-Europeanism" means, and most of the article is an unsourced and indiscriminate list of political parties. I don't think there's an actual topic here; the synthesis between "supports specific EU measures" and "supports the concept of multi-nationalism" is too great. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The article can be cleaned up/improved- 100% agreed. But, just because the intro is slightly vague, it does not justify the deletion in my opinion. From what I have come to understand, this article hosts various political parties within greater Europe that are "Pro-EU" to a degree (as stated in their respective ideologies/manifestos). I believe the definition can be clarified to better reflect that. Best, Archives908 (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and address concerns through editing. I was expecting to find a largely unreferenced article when reading the nomination; but with 52 citations I don't think a claim of lacks sourcing can be made. A more fair assessment is that this article is only partially sourced. It's a little difficult to give an opinion on this topic because the two foundational sources for the concept are both offline references. If the nominator had actually stated that the offline sources cited didn't actually support the conceptual framework, or that the text was somehow an original synthesis of those works than I would be inclined to vote the other way. However, it's not clear the nominator has actually read those sources. As is, I'm inclined to WP:AGF that the original contributor has faithfully interpreted the offline sources and that there is RS supporting this conceptual framework in order for it to pass GNG. That said, I wouldn't doubt that OR/SYNTH has creeped in elsewhere, and that a thorough combing through the sources that are cited and trimming down of the article is needed. What we really need is to tag this with Template:Expert needed, because this is a puzzle that requires more than just the typical AFD once over.4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, 4meter4 sums it up best IMHO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Needs better sourcing or weak delete. This is a really hard one, the term is clearly very widely used, but it strikes me as something that is not presented as an ideology in itself. I would be much more comfortable if somebody could link an article which defines Pro-Europeanism, rather than attributing it as a position to an individual or party. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's very clear what pro-Europeanism is but if people don't get it they can read something like this. And, as for the attitude of the various parties, here's a book on the subject. See also Pan-European nationalism, Pan-European identity and other related articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It's very clear what x is" is not a valid argument that it meets WP:GNG. The opinion article that you link is not valid to provide notability, the book is probably much better. I could not find the passage where "pro-Europeanism" is defined, as it is paywalled and none of the hits in the book for "pro-Europeanism" defined it close enough to the term for me to see it. But if you have found a definition in there, put it up and I will happily change my vote to keep. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination says nothing about WP:GNG whereas it does claim that "It's unclear what "Pro-Europeanism" means". I have therefore refuted the nomination by providing some counter-examples. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That the word "pro-European" and its derivative "pro-Europeanism" are used is not doubted by anyone. That "Pro-Europeanism" constitutes an ideology which meets GNG has still not been demonstrated. If you find a scholarly article or two which does this, you should link them, because that it is more or less game over for the AfD.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately this article does what so many do when struggling to find good sources treating a subject as a whole: become a list. The article has many reliable sources but they mainly seem to be pointing to particular parties being "Pro-Europe" which is a quite self-explanatory phrase but does not, as far as I can see, point to a larger movement or idea. The usage seems to be limited to speaking about varying national attitudes towards Europe and the EU. At best, the New Statesman articles [25] [26] can be seen as primary sources (and are opinion pieces) talking around the idea and trying to define it rather than speaking about an already defined concept. Writing this I have talked myself into a delete !vote. At my most generous I would say draftify until it is better than just a list. Political parties change stance all the time so I think it is unmaintainable in its current form. A last point would be to contrast this article with Euroscepticism which has no problem defining the term, its ideology, history etc. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:35, 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 delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flash and Dash

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Last AfD was closed as no consensus - little participation but good points made. Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any RS on this topic. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. There's been plenty of time since the last AfD to provide a claim to notability, no evidence any exists. Ifnord (talk) 03:43, 27 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Fischer

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Esw01407, this BLP is incredibly poorly sourced and all these roles are minor characters. Link20XX (talk) 00:22, 7 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 speedy delete. G12 copyvio per HighKing. Both the English and the original Italian articles were created in one hit rather than slowly evolving. Additiionally, this may well be a purely promotional creation. The product is for sale at the farinabono.ch website and the earliest version of the English article gives that as the Official Site. For the record, I was inclined to keep this had it not been for the copyvio, so there is no obstacle to its recreation as a properly written article. SpinningSpark 14:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farina bona

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Possible ATD would be merge/redirect or redirect to Onsernone but I'm not sure it is significant enough to make the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Farina bona is recognized as a "Swiss culinary heritage": https://www.patrimoineculinaire.ch/Prodotti?text=Farina+B%C3%B3na&canton=&categorie=#455 --Hadi (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to be a well known food that extends back into antiquity. In looking at google books I got a lot of hits with cookbook recipes using it (mainly in Italian and Swiss but also French and Russian), farina bona ice cream, medieval recipes, etc. Even Hippocrates mentioned it briefly. But I couldn't find any RS just talking about it directly as a product/ history. Only brief mentions. Not sure what to think.4meter4 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based (1) on the feeling that a lot of half-decent sources writing at least a bit on the subject adds up to the same sort of weight as two sources in depth (I know this is bad arithmetic); (2) on the sheer quantity of Google hits; and (3) on the text: the text refers to historical sources and testimonies, and is either a stupendously good bit of Original Research, or more likely, an article pieced together from decent sources which unfortunately the writer failed to cite. We should delete the incorrigibly non-notable, not the uncontroversial-probably-true-but-not-properly-cited; this latter should be tagged as needing references. Elemimele (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Farina bona is a corn (maize) flour, so any use in the context of Hippocrates or before the 1500s is probably unrelated, and Swiss cuisine suggests corn might not have become a staple before the 1800s -- which is consistent with [27]. Happy with redirection and brief coverage as proposed. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was nominated for deletion less than 6 minutes after the nomination of another article. Both nominations used the automated Twinkle suite. The suggestion that the intervening 5 minutes was enough time to conduct WP:BEFORE for topic with a history "that extends back into antiquity", is laughable. So keep and close as out of process, or keep because it meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per G12 WP:COPYVIO. This article was created in December 2009 and is based on this website's contents also in English language which predate this article. Everything in the article originates from that website and the timing suggests this article was created to promote that business. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing: how do we know that the contents of that site predate the addition of our article? Note that the Italian is an almost verbatim copy of Italian Wikipedia's version as of 2008, while the web archives of the other page date to 2010 only, which means they could well have copied it-wiki. It would be good to know for sure, though. — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru good point but the 2008 Italian wiki page shows a link to this web site which is of the same name but ".ch" and which was in existence in 2007. Although the "Curiosita" page hasn't been archived from 2007, it existed and given the lack of updates to the website in general, my opinion is that this article is a clear copyvio. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability and the years that keep passing by without a reference indicate to me that none are forthcoming. Ifnord (talk) 03:47, 27 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Falkenberg

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

Some significance and coverage but not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. JSTOR lists many reviews of this Falkenberg's book Kin and Totem, and I also found three reviews of another book The Affinal Relationship System: A New Approach to Kinship and Marriage among the Australian Aborigines of Port Keats (ProQuest 1299118304, JSTOR 25131942, [28]). I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR. The article is in severe need of clean-up, but WP:DINC. Incidentally, there are also multiple publications about someone else with the same name:
- Falkenberg, Johannes, Deutsche Biographie
- Bess, Bernhard (1895), Johannes Falkenberg O.P. und der preussisch-polnische Streit vor dem Konstanzer Konzil, Perthes
- Boockmann, Hartmut (1975), Johannes Falkenberg, der Deutsche Orden und die polnische Politik: Untersuchungen zur politischen Theorie des späten Mittelalters, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht
- Miethke, Jürgen (2013), "Die Polen auf dem Konstanzer Konzil. Der Konflikt um den Dominikaner Johannes Falkenberg", In Braun, Karl-Heinz (ed.): Das Konstanzer Konzil : 1414–1418; Weltereignis des Mittelalters, Stuttgart, pp. 106-110

So part of the cleanup should probably be figuring out who that was and disambiguating. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on a search in Google scholar that shows multiple other academics referencing his work. Mccapra (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 08:58, 9 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) 07:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon Marching Band

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Possible ATD is redirect or merge/redirect to Bowling Green State University. Boleyn (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with sources like this, this, this, this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:41, 5 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) 19:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ejgreen77. Passes GNG and criteria 1 of WP:BAND. There's likely a lot more RS on the Falcon Marching Band as Bowling Green University's music program is one of the best in the nation; producing a lot of doctoral students and research fellows in music on top of performers.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 12 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. Geschichte (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Centreville Presbyterian Church

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

This was prodded with the reason: 'Does not satisfy WP:NBUILDING. Been in CAT:NN for almost 12 years.'

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GNG either. Boleyn (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROD-nominator. Completely forgot to list it after it was in illegible for PROD. WP:BEFORE shows no in-depth coverage to establish building. – DarkGlow • 18:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RamotHacker. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 21:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete -- Looks like a run-of-the-mill church. My guess is that the stained glass is also NN, but I am willing to be corrected on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 5 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 01:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne Parker (model)

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

Article has been tagged for not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline since 2018 -- there does not appear to have been an attempt to burnish the article further since then. Individual has appeared on two reality TV shows and does not appear to be notable otherwise. Fixer23 (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - while acknowledging that WP:BEFORE here is challenging, as most of the sources that appear during a search relate to the eminently more notable Cheyenne Parker. There are, however, some sources including this fairly in-depth profile, this article, and this one, as well as the usual nonsense you expect to see for reality television like this. I will say that most of what is available has appeared since 2018 (when the article was tagged) so the tags themselves (and this nomination) are understandable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep - While there may be concern about his notability. He has been on three different reality tv shows and has done modeling outside of reality TV.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 01:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being on the cast of reality TV shows does not make one inherently notable and the coverage is not enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what he's received coverage for, at least not for a few years. Stuff like this moves past his reality TV work in the first line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interview and the text is garnered from his responses. This not secondary independent sourcing. This is coverage about subject by the subject and written down. This is the same as self promotion. This kind of article is great for a celebrity-gossip site, it sells clicks and magazines. But it is does not help with determining notability. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of it are not secondary, of course, but he didn't interview himself. In fact, it wasn't an interview. Someone independent has pulled together material from multiple sources (including different interviews by different publications), presented it with editorial, and has included quotes from the subject. That's fairly textbook journalism. Its positive, yes, but not self-promotional. Is there any evidence this article was created by the subject, or someone close to the subject? St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is easy to see the entire article is based on comments and opinions offered by Cheyenne Parker himself. And a large portion of this source is quoted material - quoting Cheyenne Parker. This is not considered independent sourcing on Wikipedia. This is considered to be information recounted from a person directly involved with the topic - which in this case is the person himself.

It may take place in a web magazine, but there is no independence between the subject and himself from which the information is delivered to the reader. Fails BASIC and ANYBIO. And I will add, this topic is probably WP:TOOSOON. I will acknowledge that the first paragraph might be independent journalism, but this does not constitute significant coverage (in a secondary source).---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That the article is presented in that style (in the subject's voice) does not mean there was not independent editorial oversight of the material and independent decisions made about what should be included and what should not. Again, this is an article made up of pieces of multiple interviews and someone independent of the subject has made editorial decisions about the nature of that coverage. It's not based, for example, on a press-release or even a press statement, where the subject decides what should be covered and that is repeated, verbatim, by the publisher. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with WP:BEFORE, the coverage falls short of notable coverage from reliable sources Dexxtrall (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "notable coverage" is supposed to mean, but the sources listed above include a detailed 800+ word account of his activities since his appearances on reality television. Or are you suggesting its not a reliable source? St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for snark and being confrontational. I already discounted that particular source above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no snark here. Your opinion of that source is noted, but its not really based in policy. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my opinion is based on policy - and guidelines. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very minor celebrity and not notable. Fails BASIC, ANYBIO. Subject has not received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion (including self-promotion). ---Steve Quinn (talk)
Keep the sources found do seem to meet requirements regardless of whether this guy seems important. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor celebrity. If the article can't expand on his life and career further than a short filmography, I think that can confirm this person is not notable enough.Grapepinky (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely can, its just that nobody has bothered to do so yet. In fact, it should have been done before the article was nominated for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be expanded beyond listings of a very short filmography pleases do so. Please show that it can be done. A general assertion that BEFORE wasn't done is not proof there is more that is worthy for inclusion. Otherwise it seems independent reliable sourcing does not support inclusion for this topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have that process backwards. It's called "BEFORE" for a reason; those are things that should happen before an article is nominated for deletion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, I have now done so. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Steve Quinn. The provided references do not seem to guarantee subject's notability.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. References have been updated, the article has been cleaned up, and the content we have for the subject now relates to more than just his appearances on reality television. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. This guy is just a minor celebrity. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Stalwart111. 172.58.107.175 (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Steve Quinn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 17:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stalwart111. He appears to be notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is significant coverage. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage. RamotHacker (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Improved substantially since nomination by Stalwart111. NemesisAT (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are several in-depth news coverage. meets WP:GNG. Peter303x (talk) 08:58, 6 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 FIA R-GT Cup

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

Non-notable event which appears to be little more than a showcase for a single car manufacturer. A before search only returned one source (Dirtfish) which appears to both be independent of the subject and to provide non-routine coverage, and even then that source is providing significant coverage of the Group R-GT category as a whole, and not of this specific season. All other sources either appeared to be non-independent (including some press-releases re-published by third parties) or to only contain routine coverage. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: All previous R-GT Cup seasons have their own article. There are currently two manufacturers (Alpine and Abarth), some Porsches are also eligible. The page might not be up to date, but sooner or later one of the editors will catch up. Wild8oar (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what any of that has to do with Wikipedia's general policies on article deletion? The fact that Porsches and Abarths are eligible would not make this pass the WP:GNG, and the existence of other articles on similar subjects (which themselves may or may not pass the WP:GNG) would not either (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). If the page is out of date then I suspect that that is because the subject has not received any significant coverage from sources, thus meaning editors neither know or care about the subject (due to lack of exposure if not any other reason) and that if they did want to update the article there would be a lack of available sources to cite. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:36, 25 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) 18:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. That past seasons have received articles does not mean that this one should, is not a guarantee of notability, and does not mean that those articles are compliant with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold There are six previous FIA seasons!!! certainly it is a minor series, however it is registered and important brands such as Porsche, Abarth and now also Alpine compete !!!

HumanBodyPiloter5 is the idiot put this article in delete! --Peter39c (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do we do with the 2022 season that will start in January we do not write it in the article, in your opinion these events have no public? and in January when the Monte Carlo Rally starts we don't put it in the article? Hey guys, there are 90 years that racing rallies in Monaco !!! 90 years !! --Peter39c (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Peter39c (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

I'm finding it incredibly difficult to understand your comment. Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, do you have an argument against deletion? That the championship races at notable circuits does not make the championship itself notable.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems incredible to me that you who created the Template: Alpine F1 say this thing. --Peter39c (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What...?
5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 16:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold There are six previous FIA seasons!!! certainly it is a minor series, however it is registered and important brands such as Porsche, Abarth and now also Alpine compete !!!^[1]It's probable that ACI Rally Monza 2021 will also be added too. --Peter39c (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Peter39c (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

The existence of previous articles is meaningless, because there is no guarantee they pass notability guidelines. Being registered does not indicate notability. If notable brands participate, that does not establish notability, as notability is not inherited. None of what you've said changes the fact that the 2021 FIA R-GT Cup has not received significant coverage and does not pass the general notability guidelines.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which is not a valid rationale at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 02:38, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imu Ovaioza Yunusa

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

Puff piece article by UPE. Refs are PR, profiles. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Sourced mostly to interviews. Does not meet WP:GNG. or WP:BASIC. Princess of Ara 08:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 11:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:21, 9 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 merge to Afrihost. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Axxess (South Africa)

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

WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-05 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important to Internet in South Africa an ISP index

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:SIGCOV. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references from TelecomPaper and MyBroadband are just enough to show notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, multiple references are present that just about establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 08:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TelecomPaper and MyBroadband are low-audience industry blogazines, and the content appears to be press release esque - I certainly don't see the kind of independent analysis that CORPDEPTH requires, and without any other significant CORPDEPTH-compliant sources, this doesn't hit NCORP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Afrihost. Axxess is a subsidiary of Afrihost according to this and other articles. Not seeing enough to justify a stand-alone article, and Afrihost is a more developed article. Per WP:NOPAGE it can be mentioned there and redirected. Looks like this hasn't come up yet in this discussion, so pings: @Premeditated Chaos, NmesisAT, Eastmain, WaddlesJP13, and HighKing: — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to merge as suggested per WP:ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, selective merge & redirect is fine by me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 16:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Afrihost per above discussion. — Alalch Emis (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Afrihost per above.4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 01:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucía Abello

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Virc587 (the creator) with the following rationale "prevent the proposed deletion". Thank you for the eloquent defense, but let's discuss this here now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is definitely not notable and the article is written in a promotional manner. Almost all the references are self published or otherwise unsuitable (Flickr as a reference? Really?). Half of the references are by Abello herself which is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. I appreciate that the article creator is attempting to improve coverage of women on Wikipedia, but that does not allow for notability rules to be ignored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You sarcastically mock the deprodder's "eloquent defense" in their edit comment, but fail to note that they did, in fact, leave a detailed response on the article's talk page, which I've copied below. pburka (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you very much for retrieving this message! Virc587 (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Piotrus:, thanks for writing. This is the first time I have experienced a delete proposal, I hope I am responding appropriately.
This article meets the necessary criteria for notability,

it has awards and distinctions cited in references 5, 10 and 11. It has indexed and referenced publications (12 to 21) and

it also has a strong profile in Gscholar, available here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Luc%C3%ADa+Abello&btnG=

I will be very attentive to understand if you have another point of view and that we can improve this biography.
Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virc587 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Virc587: With all due respect, having 'indexed and referenced publications' is not enough to meet the criteria. They need to be significant, which can be shown by being called such by other scholars, or by having very high citation numbers in a given field. The linked GSchjolar profile shows one book co-authored with 3 other people that have 53 citations, and nothing else in double digits. In my experience, that's too little by at least a factor of 10. Granted, those are subjective criteria, and we will see what others will say, but IMHO this is not enough to meet WP:PROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep albeit rather weakly. It is always difficult to assess people who don't sit neatly in a 'typical' category. We have guidelines on notability of actors, sportspeople and professors, but we don't have a guideline for librarians. We evaluate business awards daily, but who knows which awards for librarians are meaningful? We have to think about what notability really means: it means do other, unrelated people actually listen to this person, has this person made a splash, not by self-advertisement, but by doing things that the world cares about? We might measure notability in strict ways described in the guidelines, but with odd professions, we have to revisit the underlying meaning to check our assessment is fair, given the opportunities available to the subject (e.g. sportspeople easily get in newspapers compared to architects, but can't get chosen for a gallery like an artist; each profession has its own public sphere). Abello has publications (lots), her name crops up all over the place when I do some Google searching, she's clearly doing a lot more than the normal librarianing; she has copious awards whose value is difficult to assess, but which are almost certainly meaningful. I can't think how, as a librarian, someone could make a much bigger impact on the public stage than she has; her impact is certainly, translated between the worlds of libraries and professorships, as large as a professor in a named chair editing a journal somewhere (who would have qualified as notable twice-over on those grounds), and translated to sports-speak, she appears to play for her national librarianship side at an international level. Elemimele (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The cookie-cutter prod made bland generic comments about the sources without addressing the fact that the article was translating from another language Wikipedia and that the many sources are all in Spanish — a language for which the nominator does not claim even minimal competence. This lack of language makes the nominator's claims unreliable and implausible. And the AfD nomination does little but cut/paste the cut/paste while insulting the page's creator, who does seem fluent in the language. So, there's not a credible case to answer. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources are her own publications, the websites of institutions that gave her awards, or interviews, so they're not independent of the subject. This already addresses both points raised in the deprod rationale. The weak keep vote above probably overstates the difficulty of assessing notability. And the nominator's lack of fluency in Spanish is irrelevant since the article is in English. Avilich (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although also a weak keep. I think at least some of the sources (not many, I agree) are independent and reliable. In my opinion this coverage together with her work is enough to meet notability (barely). --Alan Islas (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources even approaching your description, 3 (very brief) and 5, are simply outlines of the subject's credentials in the context of her appointment to a local library. It's the sort of thing you mention if a person is notable, but does not itself establish notability. There's also the source in citations 1 and 9, a small profile of the subject on a government website. There is no wp:sigcov here. Avilich (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Abello meets WP:ANYBIO 2 on libraries and botanics, documenting the Chilean flora, is a very specialized topic but not for that less relevant, following Elemimele argument; also meets WP:AUTHOR 3 in my opinion. I don't agree with Avilich's argument about not being independent, she is a Chilean librarian and got awards from library associations from other countries than Chile, her own country like Spain, Peru and is part of an Iberoamerican group, making her work recognized internationally in her field which in addition I think speaks about not being on WP:MILL. The biography has independent, reliable sources from the public and private sector (references 1 to 5) and Flickr is a reference, as Trainsandotherthings mentioned but to illustrate her work documenting the flora in Chile with more than 10.000 pics of local species, something that can be useful to people looking for sources on the topic, not to claim notability as Trainsandotherthings wrongly understood the reference. Hiperterminal (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hiperterminal Which reliable source says her work on documenting Chilean flora is significant? And Flickr is not a WP:RS. The awards are interesting, but we need evidence that they are significant; we can't assume they are just because they exist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus As before, I am not arguing that Flickr is a WP:RS or independent regarding Abello but is a proof of her prolific work. El Quinto Poder is. I am a librarian, involved in the library field, attending to conferences and meeting people regularly to see who is working on what, so I guess I have a position to know, the work of Lucia is quite unique not just on botanic, but the mix between libraries and environment; Piotrus if you know about any other librarian around the world, working on libraries and botanic I agree that Lucia's bio is not relevant but in exchange we should be writing that other person's bio, otherwise she is highly relevant for the library field for her work. On the other hand, now that you talked to me directly I want to support [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]'s comment on WP:BITE, for me you have been very rude to Virc587 and at least she deserves an apology from you for mocking her. Thanks for your comments and very happy to read what do you think about it. Hiperterminal (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how ANYBIO2 is met, it explicitly says a topic needs to be significantly covered like any other. The sources don't provide this significant coverage. Source 5 for instance is the very association which gave the subject her award (not independent). Source 1=2 is a small profile on a government website. Source 4 doesn't mention the subject at all; source 3 does it only once and in passing. In all, that's not much to go on. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following Elemimele´s argument, effectively the notoriety criteria in the library field could not be the same as other areas. It would not be fair to put a librarian versus a mathematician on the same level in terms of academic production and citation, for example. On the other hand, Lucia makes an intersection between library science and botany. Dismissing the reference to flickr when it becomes an instrument of visual documentation of the Chilean flora, which later is a resource to bring ideas about the preservation of natural heritage through libraries, is unfortunate. Virc587 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv^🍁 16:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was mentioned earlier that the article is written in a promotional way, but I don't think so; it tells of the particular work that Lucia (as a librarian and biologist) has done in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030, from IFLA and the UN. I am a fellow librarian who particularly admires this biography because of the issues it addresses - closely related to SDG 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change...), and SDG 15 (Promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems...). Just as it happens to me, I believe that Lucia can be a great reference for many more people in terms of actions that can be implemented from libraries in relation to the environment; even more so considering the current context of climate change and biodiversity loss with clear evidence worldwide. The visibility of their work is totally relevant for our field. Alina Sarli (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is brand new and with a single contribution: did you create it just to sway the vote here? Your entire comment is itself promotional but also nugatory: where are the relevant policies, and where are the sources that establish notability? Avilich (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich I added Lucia's bio as part of Wikiproject Women in Red. The editor(s) involved may be new as Alina Sarli; many thanks Avilich for assume good faith regarding her contributions, and please avoid WP:BITE newcommers. In AfD even anonymous users can vote so, why is a problem if she just create it to vote? She is starting to participate and is doing it with her own account and not using her IP address, I think that's on Alina's favor instead of against her as you presented it. Alina is an Argentinean librarian (not Chilean as Abello, to avoid any COI) and I can prove it but respect Alina's desire to not publish yet her own user page and that you assume her good faith but if you need it, please let me know. Hiperterminal (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I quote from the article: "In 2012 she was chosen as the Outstanding Librarian of the Year, the highest honor bestowed by the Chilean National Library Association". Because she has received this honour, Abello should be notable - as WP:NACADEMIC suggests: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". --159.196.100.171 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside the problem of increasingly likely sockpuppetry here, there is no proof that award bestowed by the Chilean National Library Association qualifies as "a highly prestigious academic award or honor". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. The award is at a national level - why is it not appropriate? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACADEMIC says "as substantiated through reliable sources", and you also missed this unmissable statement in clear bold, "Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow". One of these general notes reads, "Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on." So there's actually no good evidenc the subject meets NACADEMC. So again, where are the sources confirming that the subject or the award are notable? Avilich (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're in the article. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed above. Most are not independent and the rest are not significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The award is at a national level - why is it not appropriate? As I have indicated, it is appropriately sourced. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being at national level is not sufficient. It also has to be "highly prestigious". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the highest honour of the Chilean National Library Association. Why is that not prestigious enough? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you could make this same claim about the highest honour awarded by any organization. Who says it is prestigious? You? Me? That's not good enough. We need a reliable and independent source that states this award is considered prestigious. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When all the information is analyzed, the context tells us that Lucía completes the notability. I do not understand the insistence on judging the prestige of an award granted by a national library association, but if the information is useful, The National College of Librarians of Chile was created by law (here the link to the law: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806). On the other hand, the fact that another country has appointed her an honorary member of the library association, as is the case of Peru, reinforces her recognition in Latin America. Virc587 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So a national award that is the highest honour in her field of work is "not good enough". That's really surprising. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not without good coverage in sources, per WP:NACADEMIC. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable source confirms that this is "the highest honour in her field of work"? (I fully understand that you may find this ridiculous question, sadly, there are plenty of spammers, hoaxters, and so on who abuse the system, hence we have such requirements). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The National College of Librarians of Chile was created by law (here the link to the law: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806), a law is not a reliable source?

You find here, in this debate, more than one user on whom you can identify that we are not spammers, like Hiperterminal (talk), Alina or myself . Still, you question the reliability of our area of work and knowledge. The criteria are understandable in light of what you explain, but the lack of context on your part to apply them in this debate, no. There is a lot of hostility, first in your treatment at the beginning of this debate and the lack of response the first time I consulted you, then in suggesting that we are spammers. It is not healthy to build a collaborative encyclopedia in this situation. Hopefully we can debate and argue from places that do not discredit anyone. Hugs. Virc587 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriately sourced. One of the sources is the awarding institution itself, the other is the government institution she works on. Neither is independent or significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich & Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus I mentioned before, but want to write it here too: this biography is part of Wiki Women in Red, The editors involved may be new, thanks for assume good faith regarding their contributions, and please avoid WP:BITE newcommers and the idea of sockpuppet is not good faith at all. Maybe they avoid to use their own accounts because are afraid of your aggressive responses, just in my humble opinion. Please consider your votes and attitudes regarding this process. Hiperterminal (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hiperterminal, WIR is a noble project I fully support, but sometimes it produces content that is not eligible for Wikipedia. I also fully support BITE, but I don't think there is any biting here. Logging in and using their proper account is the best practice, if someone is not following best practices, they risk being criticized. Nothing more, nothing less. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

Lucía has participated over the years in activities and events held in different countries. She has participated in CERLALC's International Network of Emerging Library Innovators program (https://cerlalc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/INELI_Modelo-ESPACIOS-PARA-LA-CREACI%C3%93N.pdf). CERLALC is the Regional Center for the Promotion of Books in Latin America and the Caribbean and is an intergovernmental organization under the auspices of UNESCO.

In 2020 it was convened by the National Library of Colombia, to participate in the VII National Congress of Public Libraries (https://bibliotecanacional.gov.co/es-co/actividades/noticias/PublishingImages/en-la-rnbp/congreso-bibliotecas-publicas-2020/agenda_vii_congreso.pdf)

The Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Sports of Colombia has also relieved its work together with that of other countries:https://www.culturarecreacionydeporte.gov.co/biblioteca/internacional.html

Just a few weeks ago, IFLA, the International Federation of Library and Library Associations, convened Lucia to a conference on Emerging Leaders: Trends for the Future (Americas), at the IFLA international congress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKQS2zreQG0

Lucía's work was surveyed by the Integrated System for Monitoring and Evaluation of Native Forest Ecosystems (SIMEF), a Chilean national initiative that establishes a coordinated work model between public institutions and involves local communities in the monitoring of native forest ecosystems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKPTivcjoA&t=5s

Lucia's biography can be improved and added content, but would it really be correct to delete it? I am a librarian, and I feel that we lose a lot by turning off a biography that teaches our community about the impact that reading has on the preservation of the native heritage of a country, such as the promotion of Chilean flora through libraries. Are the notability criteria the same for a librarian as for a soccer player, a model, a TV host, a mathematician, a politician or a literary man? Her biography in Catalan and Spanish has not undergone any deletion proposal, I think this should also be taken into account.

National and international awards and recognitions are mentioned, but their prestige is judged without putting into context the diversity of the information provided. That is why I mention that the College of Librarians of Chile, which offers a national award, was created in this country by law (https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806). The fact that many times there is no public coverage in the press about this field of knowledge (library science), should not have a negative influence as at the moment. The information is still of interest to a specific community even if it does not have the popularity criteria of other areas, and therefore it is unfair to subject it to the same forms of evaluation without context. Virc587 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are either WP:SPS (youtube) or not independent. See also item 4 of WP:RGW. And please don't vote twice. Avilich (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but youtube contents are not Self-published sources.

I do not understand the statement "not independent".

I did not know that I could not vote again in relisted, as I said the first time I left a message about this bio, it is the first time I have faced this and I hope to learn. Hugs and I will be attentive to your comments. Virc587 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USESPS#Examples of self-published sources, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my question was not aimed at you to refer me to the examples, but to explain it to me, because the videos that I cited from youtube were not uploaded or produced or organized by the person biographed. Thank you anyway. I continue to learn, although I do not understand the criteria with which you affirm something that it is not. Virc587 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy I linked explains all of that, self-published means author = publisher, not subject of the publication = publisher. Avilich (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well. So if you saw that in the two videos that I refer, the person who was biographed is not the editor, right? Not even his channel. In the first, the world's leading international organization on libraries, is the publisher. In the second, a naturalistic organization is the publisher. Please help me better understand the concept of self-published in these two cases. Thanks in advance. Virc587 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the claim that the award for Outstanding Librarian given by a national library is not prestigious. An independent news source, Soy Chile, lists it in the first sentence of a news article about Abello. Do we need to see the specific descriptive word "prestigious" applied to make it sufficiently prestigious? I also think WP:BITE is happening here: "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as 'sockpuppet'". Skvader (talk) 17:26, 7 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 - no point in this continuing any further (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of visits made by the prime ministers of (country)

Propose deleting Category:Indian prime ministerial visits

Propose deleting Category:Lists of United States presidential visits

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

WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Ok, I guess, prime ministers/presidents make lots of international trips. But listing every single one of them is not encyclopedic information. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding every single article in the category, since it's all the same. Also, per WP:NOTBURO, nominating the category jointly with the articles since if the articles get deleted, the category will also have to go. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding every single other country that I can quickly find (so far only the US; please wait for AWB request to be completed) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is being WP:POINTy. Many of these visits are in fact notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The bad faith accusation is entirely unwarranted. A few of the international visits themselves might be (a very few). That does not justify keeping any of the excessively long database-listings of (nearly) every single one of them. It's a case where even if a few are notable, the lists are so unwieldy and useless cruft that it's better to just nuke the whole lot. Also an issue of WP:LISTN, as although maybe a select few individual state visits are notable, the grouping as a whole is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all We've had this discussion not long ago. Look at Category:Diplomatic visits by heads of government and how many things are there. The leader of a nation visiting another nation is a historical event, covered by media in both nations, and belongs in this encyclopedia. Are you planning on nominating all of them for deletion? Dream Focus 23:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes, this format being popular does not mean there is no problem with it. Given how frequent these things seem to be (judging be how long some of those pages are), diplomatic visits are about as historically significant as the Queen of England's farts. Wikipedia does not cover everything simply because it can be proven to be true. An encyclopedia is a "summary of knowledge". I don't see what knowledge is being summarised by all those pages, except maybe the WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of every routine diplomatic visit (and many of these lists are not even referenced properly, also failing WP:V). I mean, the amount of rain that falls in a given year is also an interesting historical statistic, but we don't have articles listing "Yearly rainfall records in (country/place/...)". We have Climate of the United Kingdom, or Climate of the United States. By the same token, and to keep the example's theme, we should be just fine with United Kingdom–United States relations. Both of these are examples of encyclopedic coverage. The listcruft is not. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I'm not really seeing support for deletion in the text of WP:NOTDATABASE. None of the numbered items (e.g. "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases") match these articles, and the introduction to the section reads To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. When I look at the higher-quality articles in this category, like List of international prime ministerial trips made by Justin Trudeau, or List of international presidential trips made by Bill Clinton, I think they do satisfy this, in that they give sourced contextual details about each trip, they're not merely a list of dates and locations. Colin M (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen anybody argue the literal wording of NOTDATABASE over its spirit. The pithy little paragraphs in those two lists (out of many hundreds of other examples, such as those currently listed here) could just as well be covered in Foreign policy of the Justin Trudeau government or the equivalents, without needing an indiscriminate listing of all of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is, we can all agree on what the wording of the policy is, but the "spirit" seems much more nebulous and subjective. I'm open to considering your interpretation of policy here, but you haven't given us much to work with. Your nomination just links to WP:NOTDATABASE and an essay, and then makes a bare assertion that the information is "not encyclopedic". Colin M (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd have thought the articles speak for themselves. They basically include a nearly-exhaustive (probably more so for more recent world leaders) of international diplomatic visits; with no additional data beyond, occasionally, the routine "X met Y and discussed Z". I argue that it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to host a database for this; and that in the few instances where there is actually useful information, having this in a disjointed list is not helpful to the reader - it would be far better to have the relevant information in the relevant articles about a wider topic (take the example with the weather I was giving; or others) than as a table of routine and unremarkable occurrences. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These pages were created so that people can't flood the main articles of these politicians by writing about the visits. It is still just fine to keep them. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So now they flood these pages with them instead? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:14, 6 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Living prime ministers of India

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

Non-encyclopedic cross categorisation ("alive" and "prime minister of India") which also includes a whole lot of unverifiable WP:OR and a large statscruft table. Fails all of WP:LISTN, WP:NOT and WP:V (the sources are only used to support random facts about the prime ministers themselves, not about the list subject). Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of India and plenty of other similar ones for other countries. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not add any value that the list of prime ministers of India doesn't — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations and the consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of India. Edge3 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a trivial and irrelevant aspect to the understanding of Indian politics. (Also per similar AFDs). Geschichte (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living presidents of Bolivia, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living prime ministers of the United Kingdom, this is to my eye an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statistics without context or explanation of significance, and as such WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. I don't see anything worth merging to List of prime ministers of India, and I don't think this title would make for a useful redirect. If we want to, we can create a graphical illustration akin to Template:Lifespan of each President of India, but that can be discussed separately. TompaDompa (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No value added as we already had a list. See: list of prime ministers of India and per WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations --Assyrtiko (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic content. --Sreeram Dilak 04:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As the creator of this list, I now suggest it to be deleted as all other lists regarding Living president/prime minister of ..... are deleted. This too is an example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which I now understand and propose it to be deleted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:47, 9 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) 21:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Men Walking (film)

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage per WP:NF, no other indication of notability by WP:NFO BOVINEBOY2008 15:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has a full review at Dread Central here. There are other reviews listed at the external reviews section at imdb but haven't checked them out yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 11 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) 19:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks enough significant coverage to meet WP:NF or WP:SIGCOV. One review in a relatively minot publication isn't enough, and IMDB is not reliable enough to count.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above, though I will tag it with one citation. Qwerfjkl talk 19:31, 27 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ch-aviation

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

No secondary sources (fails to meet WP:GNG) and little notability as a source LukeWWF (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides official website and a few other trivial pages that do not testify notability criteria, there is no sources that would ilustrate this company deserves an article. The references provided inside the article are also just a quick notices and add nothing substantial.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 17:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not notable as a website or a news source. Looking up the website on Google, there is very little that is actually substantive about the website. The references barely mention the subjects of this article. Gorden 2211 (talk) 06:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:17, 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 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 00:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airways (magazine)

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

Relies on primary sources and general failure to meet criteria for WP:GNG LukeWWF (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Australian Aviation source cited [29] is not about and does not mention the magazine in question - there are only a couple of blog-type comments under the article that have a link to an article on the magazine's website.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and Wikipedia:Notability (media).4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KPhone

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it has great significance or great coverage. Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I concur with the nom. There are mentions here and there, a low quality review or two in the article, some brief definitions in scholarly literature. It has (had?) some visibility, but I couldn't find any indication it was considered particularly significant or influential. Ping me if higher quality coverage is found and I'll be happy to revisit this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 9 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El ultimo ke zierre

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

The band seem to have an extensive discography which is why I thought they would satisfy WP:NBAND, but during WP:BEFORE, I could find no WP:RS discussing their career in detail. I thought I'd bring it to AfD to see if there is anything I'm missing. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An extensive discography is not a sign of notability. Many underground punk/grindcore bands have lots of releases, but that doesn't make them notable since most of the time, nobody wrote a review of said albums; they are available in stores and on streaming media, they have some database entries, they can be downloaded from somewhere, you can buy the merch...however, none of those are reliable sites and they cannot be used in WP articles. So an extensive discography does not make a band/musician notable. On the case of this band, they don't seem very notable, but I might be wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment reply Thanks for the clarification for anyone that's unsure, but I'm aware of that. I wouldn't be arguing for someone's notability in an AfD nomination lol, I was just stating that I expected them to pass NBAND with RS but they don't, hence the nom. – DarkGlow • 20:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The French language wikipedia article has several sources with inline citations that could possibly indicate that the band meets NBAND and/or GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the citations from the French language Wikipedia article mentioned by 4meter4. I think that notability is now demonstrated. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the references, the last one is routine coverage which could just as well be a press release (looks like it, although it is not identified as such); the one before is largely based on an interview; and the first one is also based on statements from the promoter of the launch of the groups ultimate album. So none of these are enough to meet GNG. It might be possible that this group got coverage from local off-line sources which could amount to actual GNG, but given that the band has released multiple albums in the past twenty years (so, yeah, right in the middle of the Internet era, in Spain, a European country...), it does not bode well that nothing convincing has so far been found. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They've stuck it out for many years but it appears that they simply haven't received any reliable coverage. As the last voter said, the recently-added sources are a nice try but they're just minor promo announcements. Unless the sources are really deep in hardcopy books and newspapers, I can find no in-depth analytical articles on the band or reliable reviews of any of their albums. Otherwise they're only visible in the usual streaming and retail services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NBAND. A discography, however extensive, doesn't meet any of the criteria listed. Ifnord (talk) 03:49, 27 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 White Lion discography. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Definitive Rock Collection (White Lion album)

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

Didn't seem to chart, haven't found any more good reviews, doesn't seem very notable especially with WP:NALBUMS ‒overthrows 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ‒overthrows 14:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to White Lion discography. Many bands have had their hit songs compiled and re-compiled into several different compilation albums. Per WP:NALBUM, each of those albums needs to establish notability on its own. If the album didn't chart, wasn't certified gold or higher, and didn't receive significant coverage in multiple, non-trivial, published works, it probably doesn't need to be the subject of a separate article in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to White Lion discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic & Blabbermouth. SBKSPP (talk) 12:30, 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 redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Toby Flenderson. Consensus is that sources provided are insufficient to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Flenderson

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

Stub article about a character from the The Office (American TV series) which gives less information than in List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Toby Flenderson. Fails WP:GNG John B123 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is already covered on List of The Office (American TV series) characters, and the only information on this article is an unsubstantiated fan theory, falling under WP:CRUFT. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Toby Flenderson with R to list entry tag. Doesn't satisfy GNG. – DarkGlow • 08:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect on List of The Office (American TV series) characters. The same thing applies at Stanley Hudson. DarwinClean (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will redirect Stanley Hudson to the list of The Office characters.(JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 11:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it has been redirected and the redirection reverted before it would need to go to AfD. --John B123 (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Hudson. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 11:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The above account, DarwinClean, has requested an indefinite block after I politely questioned his immediate AfD and content trimming participation as characteristic of an older account. To the best of my knowledge, no misconduct was identified nor Checkuser tool run, but closing admins may want to take this unusual turn of events under advisement. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there are plenty of valid sources listed on the talk page like https://www.looper.com/369171/why-toby-flenderson-is-the-least-powerful-character-on-the-office/ and https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2012/07/praise-toby-flenderson. They are just not incorporated into the article yet. Passes WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If the two sources Oinker lists above are the best, than there's not much to work with here. The first is short, fancrufty and of doubious reliability, the second mentions him just in passing. That's not enough for GNG (problems with WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Office (American TV series) characters#Toby Flenderson.4meter4 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I really love this show, but I have to agree that the two sources Oinkers provided aren't good sources, and the ones that are on the page are all just episode numbers. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:22, 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 speedy keep. Clear consensus that the subject is highly notable. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Scott (entertainer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT only a Youtuber MrTumble394879 (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious speedy keep. Clearly and very obviously does meet WP:GNG. Just because a person is on YouTube that does not preclude them being notable. There are 51 references spanning more than a decade of sustained coverage of his notability for a mixture of activities, not all of them even related to YouTube. Not all of the references are great but there are more than enough good ones that this AfD is completely ill conceived and I suggest a speedy close. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not sure why PROD tags were also put on the article and its talk page. I've removed those as this AfD clearly supersedes those. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per DanielRigal. Citobun (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - I agree with above, there is a substantial amount of proper references that indicate article's subject meets criteria WP:GNG.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 17:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Same, I agree with DanielRigal. Other YouTubers with as large an audience as Tom have Wiki pages, and WP:GNG does seem to be met in this case. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep He's "only a YouTuber" but he's still a notable one. 100% obvious keep. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:49, 4 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) Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Lemarignier

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

Contested prod because “contest deletion per WP:SOFIXIT - easily passes WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF and the WP:GNG with several reliable obituaries and many reviews readily available”. Article simply states that subject was a historian and cites only none source. Hence my prod that notability was not established. What is not in the article doesn’t matter to me and what is in the article does matter. Nothing indicates notability. In fact, the person who contested the prod deleted notability and lack of references tag. BostonMensa (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BostonMensa (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC 1, 2, 3, and 5. A corresponding Fellow of the British Academy and the holder of a full French chair, Knight of the Legion of Honour and Officer of the Palmes Academiques. Obituaries in leading disciplinary publications. Etc. And yes, WP:SOFIXIT too. Atchom (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not surprising that the creator of the articles wants to keep it, but there is nothing in it to indicate notability.Being a corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, etc., is suggestive, but proves nothing. We need to know what work led to these honours. Is it really so difficult to add this information? I suppose he wrote some books, published articles etc., but no citations are included. Athel cb (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is much more information in the French page about him: why not include some of it? Athel cb (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of what you write a guideline-based rationale for deletion? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a medievalist so I don't want to write about his substantive work. But please refer to WP:NACADEMIC first. Atchom (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think some of it should be included then you know where the edit button is. The state of the article when it was nominated for deletion has no bearing on the notability of the subject, which is what matters here (the sentence in the nomination, "what is not in the article doesn’t matter to me and what is in the article does matter" flies in the face of our notability guidelines), and you have the same responsibility to improve the article as anyone else here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. In addition to the two in-depth sources about Lemarignier already used as references (passing WP:GNG), the honors listed by Atchom (passing WP:PROF#C2 and #C3), and the professorial chair he held (#C5), he has multiple published reviews of his books, as already stated in the unprod and now added to the article, passing WP:AUTHOR. Speedy because nominator appears to have actively refused to follow WP:BEFORE, escalating to an AfD instead of using the unprod information to seek notability beyond what was already in the article, and considering only GNG notability when the unprod pointed to other notability criteria not based on sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR and multiple criteria of WP:PROF, as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (changed from Delete). With 13 edits by Atchom and David Eppstein since yesterday's discussion, and about 1000 bytes added, it seems that they took the criticisms more seriously than they wished to admit. Anyway, the article is much improved (though further improvement won't go amiss). Athel cb (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Athel cb: I find your personal remark about my motivation offensive. It is allowed, or even encouraged, to improve articles that are up for deletion. It is also part of the guidelines that notability is an attribute of a topic, not an attribute of the article in its nominated state. Improving articles is in no way an acknowledgement that a deletion nomination was appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was no intention to make a personal remark or to offend, but anyway, I apologize. I wasn't all that keen on your earlier question "How is any of what you write a guideline-based rationale for deletion?" either. It wasn't a rationale for deletion but a suggestion of how to bring the article up to an acceptable standard -- particularly easy in this case as much of the missing information was readily available in the corresponding French article. Athel cb (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes multiple notability criteria, per above. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 5 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Fighter Chronicles

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

Series of, I think, self-published novels for children. No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any critical reviews of this work, or really any reliable sources that discuss it in detail at all. I don't think that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. DanCherek (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find anything to show that this series is notable. Also pepperbeast, the series does appear to be self-published given that the paperbacks are put out through CreateSpace and the publisher looks to have only put out this series of books. This makes coverage far less likely, given that there will always be more self-published works to cover than outlets and space to cover them. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 7 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. The merger discussion can be continued on the talk page. Sandstein 13:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio school

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

Does not seem notable and looks like an advert. Cant find anything that justifies a standalone page on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - FitIndia ^{Talk Admin on Commons} 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WikiDictionary? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary defintion. At the same time, I see inadeaute evidence that this is even a widely used term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:HEY and WP:BEFORE... there are dozens of references to portfolio schools because many of the big names in advertising attended one (or more) early in their careers and many have since gone on to write self-aggrandising autobiographies. There are many schools that describe themselves as "portfolio schools" and extensive criticism of the portfolio school concept from those in advertising who believe the idea is a waste of time and money. Yes, the article could do with some balance, but that's a fixable problem. This is consistently described as one of two divergent paths to a career in advertising. I have done some clean-up, added some references (more to come), and added some content for balance. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to improvements by Stalwart111. NemesisAT (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to advertising industry. That article is presently shockingly bad, but seems like a sensible location to talk about this. I'm having trouble finding sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG to justify a stand-alone article. Thus far the absolute best source we seem to have is a listicle in AdWeek, and my search isn't producing anything better. That said, it's a hard search term. There are a ton of hits, the vast majority unreliable promotional/user-generated content, and lots of schools that use the name "portfolio school." Of the latter, some are completely unrelated to this subject, some are part of existing institutions, and none provide much coverage of this phenomenon in general. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to advertising industry.4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed judgement

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

Absolutely no reason this article should exist. Notability WP:NOTINHERITED. PepperBeast (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find any coverage. Article is referenced with only a single source, which is a primary reference. Notability is not met. The saying can be mentioned in book's article, but it does not require its own article.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 17:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. Searching the phrase alongside the authors name or keywords such as self-help and psychology yields zero relevant results on Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archive, Newspapers.com, and the Internet Archive. The phrase can also mean a delayed judgement in any circumstance and was not coined by or exclusively used by Sean Covey so I'm not sure a redirect to The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens is even appropriate. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:43, 4 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinmark Group

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

Article was deleted under G11 today but was swiftly recreated. The obvious COI aside, It's a promotional article for a company that does not meet WP:NCORP. I've done a source analysis on the sources used in the article and also did a BEFORE search which only brought up routine coverage.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Boss Gist	An advert	A blog source		✘ No
Top 10 Mag	? Possibly independent or a PR placement	A vanity magazine	A profile of the CEO	✘ No
Head Topics Nigeria	A press statement	A news aggregation site		✘ No
City Pride Mag	Interview of the CEO	No evidence of editorial oversight		✘ No
Bloginsense	Looks so	Blog source		✘ No
Fin Af	An advert	Blog source		✘ No
Top 10 Mag	? Possibly independent or a PR placement	A vanity magazine		✘ No
The Nation	No byline indicative of a press release	Press piece in a generally reliable source		✘ No
Cheki	~ Maybe	A review website		✘ No
Leadership	Press statement			✘ No
Mentorlinks	Rehash of their Facebook post			✘ No
Vanguard	Press statement			✘ No
Talabat		Food review website		✘ No
NYC		Business registration website		✘ No
Connect Nigeria		Business registration website		✘ No
B2bhint		Directory		✘ No
B2bhint		Directory		✘ No
Sunnews		Press statement		✘ No
Near me		Directory		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Princess of Ara 11:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 11:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 11:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DMySon (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. scope_creep^Talk 16:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per detailed nominator's source assessment table.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 17:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep:50% of the sites you mentioned are Nigerian top News Websites with some of the articles written long ago even before this publish. The reason for the addition of NYC was for verification that the Company is Incorporated in the U.S (although it has been and removed)

Sunnews,Vanguard, Leadership, The Nation, Head Topics Nigeria are reputable and notable websites. "The Nation Newspaper", "Vanguard News" and "Leadership" are Independent websites with even Wikipedia linking it as a source. In addition, a citation to a press statement from a reliable source does not violate Wikipedia guidelines. I refer you to the profiles of the likes of Bill Gates, Chimamanda Adichie, Ben Carson etc. For the b2bhint, I have deleted them from the article (thanks for this).

Based on my analysis, you are a Nigerian and well-specialized in vetting Nigerian-related articles, I believe know the company in question and have severally seen rounds of independent publications about it. Let's take for instance. If the Sunnewsoline you mentioned published about the Dangote Group, would you tag it promotional? Why? Because of the level of notability the company has attained.

~~Chinmark Group is registered and licensed under several International bodies like the ISO, CAC, Dubai Chamber of Commerce, The Companies Act, 2015" in Kenya etc.~~

Finally I am not paid to edit or create content on Wikipedia. I am a student of UNIBEN, International Relations and write as a hobby and for development as it relates to my field of career. If I were paid to edit, I would do the right thing and disclose it. I would not attract harassment or a wrong impression when I can do the right thing. Preciousoderowho21 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC) UPE who has been blocked. scope_creep^Talk 22:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 11:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thanks Princess of Ara for the source analysis. MarioGom (talk) 18:09, 5 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) 07:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sirimalle Navvindi

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

No sources at all. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References have been added. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator shall not expect regional (vernacular) sources from 1980 to be easily available at all. My bar is that the content does not turn out to be a hoax. It has been met. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Sources are not really relevant and/or reliable. Kolma8 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources added are not reliable.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 19 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 12:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhale Krishnudu

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

No sources at all. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. WP:BEFORE in this case would have involved checking the corresponding Telugu-language Wikipedia article for references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFILM. NavjotSR (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:16, 9 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Avery (speaker)

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

Promotional article about a non-notable businessperson. Declined a couple of times in AfC; no changes since the most recent decline, the article creator decided to move it into articlespace. The only claim to notability is winning the Toastmasters International championship of public speaking in 2012, but since that has not resulted in any significant coverage in independent sources, the person still doesn't meet WP:BASIC. A Guinness World Record (or even several) is not a sign of notability unless there is significant independent coverage in reliable sources, and again, there isn't. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the article's creator has disclosed their COI, which means that they shouldn't have moved the draft to mainspace, but now that it is here I think it is just as well to determine whether Avery is notable. I have cleaned up the article a bit to remove some promotional links and text. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources used in the article lack independence and are therefore not considered reliable per our verifiability and notability standards. Article is largely self promotional. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the tone is promotional. Neither the Toastmasters championship nor the Guinness world record automatically confer notability, and there does not appear to be significant independent coverage about the subject to support an article per WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 18:23, 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 deleted by Jimfbleak as G11 and possible G3. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vale Burberry

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

Does not have the multiple notable roles for WP:NACTOR and career as a model doesn't seem to be notable enough either. In my searches, I can only find unreliable sources, like the ones currently cited, such as Everybody Wiki, Facebook, LinkedIn so WP:GNG doesn't appear to be met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm not sure if this actor exists. According to IMDb, he does, and his alias is Vale Gray. However, the author of the article, whom I've just blocked, has created at least one hoax page, which I've deleted, and has strangely changed a entry for Vale whatever his last name is from "actor" to "actress" (see here), and just before I blocked him changed the short description of the nominated article from actor to actress.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 4 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 by Maile66. ✗plicit 10:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 Hacker Way Siopat Suhu

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

User:Celestina007 already picked up Tommy Jonathan Sinaga and sent that to AfD last month and interestingly all accounts defending him are now globally locked...

This appears to fail WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search came back only with their Facebook page and the exact same inadequate sources used in the article. Analis News and Jurnal Post might look like good sources but the content is entirely duplicated and it's not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH anyway. The company may well exist but where is the notability?

If anyone asserts that this company does meet NCORP then please provide WP:THREE reliable and independent sources analysing this company in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock; see SPI. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry I don't know about Tommy Jonathan Sinaga, I know he is a famous person but he may not meet this criteria on Wikipedia. But history 1 Hacker Way Siopat Suhu, they were discovered in 2014 when they eradicated 1,425 fake accounts circulating on Facebook, during the Indonesian presidential election Joko Widodo, it is known that their aim is to avoid controversy in the presidential election at that time. I didn't know that wikipedia was for famous people and not for historical figures.

Check out this resource, it might help:

Check out this resource, it might help: Akun Facebook Airin Palsu Beredar Dukung Jokowi-JK - Buka-bukaan soal Buzzer (3): Akun-akun Palsu yang Menggiring Opini Publik Appropriateness (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 Hacker Way isn't directly mentioned in any of those sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This page was CSD'd G11 a couple of days ago, no improvement since JW 1961^Talk 10:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock; see SPI. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please if you want it removed, I only assume good intentions to develop articles on wikipedia. :) Appropriateness (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain :some sources may not be added, but require references to be verified. the description on the page is decent but lacks strong resources "there are only a few reliable sources". It would be better to put a startup tag related to this company, as some other pages need resources to develop. Seems to be great for new users as the task of fixing any incomplete pages. Harmony425 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article and there is not significant coverage.RamotHacker (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note presume this can be closed - page deleted by admin Maile66 yesterday as LTA JW 1961^Talk 11:16, 8 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. Consensus reached is that the article passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Soranno

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

The subject of this article, Amy Soranno, is not notable. The vast majority of the sources discussing this person are linked to a single event: a single instance of a series of "Meat the Victims" protests that the subject, along with many other people, was involved in. It seems that even the worldwide collection of "Meat the Victims" protests as a whole does not have its own article, and even if it did, the single instance would not, on its own, be noteworthy, as it seems to have only generated national news articles in Canada for about one day. Her activism seems generally common and un-notable, and there is no indication that she's engaged in activism of any kind since this Meat the Victims thing besides chaining herself to the front doors of her local bank. Another section describes Amy's purported illnesses, one of which is pseudoscientific nonsense, and none of which are unusual enough to earn her an article. The remaining section describes Amy's career as a "teen beauty queen", which, from the article, seems to have culminated in her participation in a local carnival's beauty pageant. MichaelKossin (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— MichaelKossin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her activism spans multiple years with many separate events, and the announcement of the upcoming jury trial was covered by a number of media outlets. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Her other activism has not been notable enough to warrant coverage from reliable sources, and the upcoming trial is again part of the single arguably-notable event the subject is tied to. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event --MichaelKossin (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified @Thivierr: and @Mobrac04:, who are the creator and major contributor respectively, and were not notified by the nominator. Jumpytoo Talk 03:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Rob (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it looks like there's sustained coverage over a couple of years. It doesn't really matter how unique or noteworthy her activism seems to individual editors. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources seem hyper-local and cover her getting lyme disease or being in a beauty pageant. The rest are about stuff that happened when she was present at the event. Nothing terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be enough coverage about article's subject to me. Even though many sources are linked to the mentioned event, there also seems to be enough coverage from before to testify WP:GNG criteria, and WP:1E does not need to be accounted for.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 17:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many of the sources are indeed local to the Okanagan Lake area, User:Oaktree, but some are national, and there's also local coverage that could be found in Abbotsford publications - 500 kilometres away, that could have been used to cover events in Abbotsford. There's also some national coverage already sourced in the article. Searching wider, there's coverage in major papers like the Vancouver Sun. Nfitz (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG per all above.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a wide range of coverage overall.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:29, 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 keep. Consensus reached is that the article passes WP:NCORP. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama9

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

Notability not established, tiny company with lots of industry media sources that cannot be trusted to be unpartial Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 13 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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Panorama9". PC Magazine. 2012-05-31. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The review notes that the pros are:
  1. One agent on one computer gathers all data from all other machines in the network.
  2. Comprehensive.
  3. Tremendous amount of data organized in a very intuitive way.
  The review notes that the cons are:
  1. Data collection tedious without Active Directory integration.
  2. Not all of the dashboard refreshes automatically.
  3. No Mac support.
  4. Limited policy engine.
  The review notes: "One disappointment: the policies were not customizable. There doesn't seem to be a way to create more complex policies or to define new requirements. In fact, this entire screen felt overly simplistic. Panorama9 had a list of rules, such as removable storage devices, strong logon passwords, and installing p2p applications. All I could do was turn the rules on or off. If they were on, then Panorama9 would alert me when a machine violated the rule. There didn't seem to be a way to add any new rules."
2. Wallen, Jack (2012-05-04). "Let Panorama9 monitor your Windows machines and network". TechRepublic. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The review notes: "One of the more unique features of Panorama9 is the Live Feed. To get there, go to the dashboard of one of the machines and then click the Live Feed tab (Figure C); you will see a real-time feed of any issue that arises on that particular machine. This could be a great help in troubleshooting an issue on either a server or a desktop."
3. Braga, Matthew (2012-06-04). "Solving IT headaches with a monitoring dashboard in the cloud". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The article contains an interview with the company's CEO but has enough independent coverage to contribute to notability. The article notes: "The Copenhagen-based Panorama9 is billed as a comprehensive IT management system for small- and medium-sized businesses—the kind that probably can't support their own IT staff. You install the company's software on each of your Windows PCs (and in a few weeks, Macs too). The client lives in your System Tray, and almost immediately begins sending data back to the Panorama9 dashboard, which is accessible from nearly any modern browser."
4. Grant, Rebecca (2012-12-13). "Funding Daily: MMA". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2021-08-29. Retrieved 2021-08-29.
  The article notes: "Cloud-based IT management platform Panorama9 has raised $900K in seed financing from private investors in Denmark. The company offers a dashboard that small to medium businesses can use to monitor and control all IT operations in their network. The system offers real-time alerts of issues and security vulnerabilities, as well as support across multiple devices and operating systems. Panorama was founded in Copenhagen and was first active in Scandinavia. It entered the US market in April of 2012, and will use this financing to deepen its American presence, as well as explore potential partnerships."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Panorama9 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more bold relist to consider Cunard's sources, if anyone wishes to contest them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the sources shared by Cunard above. Reuters and ArsTechnica especially are both trustworthy sources and establish notability in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided above, enough coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP Varousz (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to the sources provided by Cunard, which is enough to satisfy WP:NCORP Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:30, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 18:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Piotr

AfDs for this article:

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

This "article" is a thinly veiled advertisement, and the sources are standard puffery. Collaborating with notable musicians is a classic WP:NOTINHERITED for notability of this subject. It was rejected 4 times (!) at AfC, I can't honestly say I'm clear on what made the 5th version any more suitable, and this page has only become more vanispamcruftisement since. The gross overuse of quotes just shows how desperate the people who created and expanded this were for filler material to make this look like a legitimate article. Plus, the article absolutely reeks of COI editing; The Digital Sky is a music company affiliated with the subject, and I've just blocked the creator per WP:CORPNAME. Technically not eligible for G4, as tempting as it would be, so starting this discussion here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reviews of albums, links to non-notable websites and other semi-useless sources. One, maybe two bigger mentions as sources. Overall, not for Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Oaktree b: reviews of albums and singles in real publications definitely count towards notability (for bands and musicians). BuySomeApples (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's enough sources to meet gng, and probably other guidelines too. There's PopMatters,[30] Entropy,[31] Tiny Mix Tapes,[32][33][34][35] Cyclic Defrost,[36] and The Needle Drop,[37] among others. There's also a host of interviews in other publications (I know they don't add to notability, but they make the page more complete). BuySomeApples (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are all utterly run of the mill filler material for publications that need to churn out something. Obscure website reviews/interviews obscure "musician" (to be generous with the term), so what? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I only included music publications that are themselves notable and used as reliable sources. (It's not like PopMatters is some obscure site.) The music publications do publish a lot of articles about music, but that's kind of the purpose of their existence. As long as they have standards it isn't a problem. There are definitely some niche reviews that I could have added here but didn't. And how is it "generous" to use the term musician? It seems like the subject is primarily known for making music. BuySomeApples (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BuySomeApples ~~Could you link here 2-3 best sources? Ones that are most reliable and meet WP:SIGCOV ?~~ Oh, I see you did, thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Piotrus: I was gonna add them again but then I saw your edit! I just chopped down the page to take out a lot of the filler and add better sources. (definitely not my best work), but at least it's more encyclopedic. (Edit: I didn't notice XLR8R when I first looked at the page, but there's that too.[38][39]) BuySomeApples (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Sources in article don't show depth and not enough Varousz (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You know it's a red flag where a Foo-ian artist does not even have an article on Foo-ian Wikipedia. I checked, he never even had one on pl wiki. At best, WP:TOOSOON, does not seem to meet WP:NARTIST. Article's author was a WP:SPA blocked for "promotional username", so some WP:COI is very likely anyway. PS. That said, the new sources linked by BSA above are not bad. This should've been deleted few years back (when it was recreated, since it was deleted before, and when recreated in 2018, the better sources BSA found, dating to 2019+, did not exist) but the subject is possibly notable now. That said, I dislike using Wikipedia for advertising, so unless someone feels like rewriting this, I am not feeling like voting keep to encourage more abuse of the project by people or their managers who just want to use us to further their career. So for now I'll abstain, even through given the sources I'd usually vote weak keep or such. Also, given the insistence on promoting this person, there is always the suspicion the 'better' sources were paid for anyway. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... Meh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even without the blatant promotion, we're still left with the skeleton of a COI article about someone that worked with notable people. The "best" sources are still extremely marginal, very much run of the mill filler material. Covering notable songs and happening to collaborate with people notable for reasons entirely unrelated to the subject is unremarkable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to beat a dead horse but I took out the covers / collaboration filler so its only stuff which is actually about him. (weirdly most of the collab stuff was sourced to blogs and personal sites anyway) Most of the page was written by me at this point but I'll admit none of the sources are Rolling Stone. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BuySomeApples. There's enough RS here to pass WP:GNG among all the fluff and promotion.4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The coverage that is significant is either promotional or WP:MILL or not reliable. After wading through the cruft, coverage that establishes this musician has had an impact through their own efforts on the industry or culture is distinctly missing. This article attempts to instead cobble together a chimera from this tidbit here and that interview there and this review in the other place and unlike the classical chimera which had the power of myth and magic to keep it together, this eventually falls apart. In other words, what The Blade of the Northern Lights said. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis. Given that the deletionists seem to be ignoring basic policies on evaluating sources for GNG, I am providing a detailed source analysis demonstrating that the subject meets criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. All of the magazines and e-zines listed are independent and have editorial oversight and are considered reliable independent and significant RS. See below.4meter4 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis
Source	Independent?	Significant Coverage?	Reliable?	Pass/Fail	Notes
https://www.popmatters.com/derek-piotr-grunt-review-2608483566.html	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent magazine with byline
https://entropymag.org/derek-piotr-making-and-then-unmaking/	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/premiere-derek-piotr-bhadrakali-lines-are-all-dying-mix-simon-whetham	Y	Y	Y	Y	Granted a rather thin review of a remix album; but nevertheless independent feature on it with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/listen-derek-piotr-repeating-bloom-simon-whetham	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/premiere-derek-piotr-grunt	Y	Y	Y	Y	Song review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.tinymixtapes.com/chocolate-grinder/listen-derek-piotr-earth-edit-chaircrusher-remix	Y	Y	Y	Y	Song review in independent e-zine with byline
https://www.cyclicdefrost.com/2019/07/derek-piotr-avia-dpsr/	Y	Y	Y	Y	Album Review in independent magazine with byline

Those are thinly veiled booster articles masquerading as actual reviews, and they're independent but generally very obscure outlets. I think Eggishorn above said it best, so I won't go on further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. They are independent magazines and e-zines (from multiple nations/continents) that regularly produce independent reviews with editorial oversight. They are regularly used to verify content on wikipedia, and are respectable sources. Saying otherwise is just flat out not true. WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are not convincing. 4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Disagreements on the reliability of a source can be brought up at WP:RSN. ––FormalDude talk 21:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. However, I see no valid or rationale reason to challenge them. The sources are clearly independent. They have editorial boards, by-lined authors writing musical criticism, and are not regurgitating content found elsewhere. They are clearly doing the work of music criticism in the way that an independent publication should. There is no consensus currently that these sources are unreliable (such as those catalogued at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) and I see no valid or obvious reason to challenge them. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep album reviews in many reliable sources are the solid reason I accepted this at AFC and the nominator's attempt to dismiss reliable sources secondary coverage such as Pop Matters and Tiny Mix Tapes is not credible. it is how the notability of musicians and bands are determined as per WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 particularly when interviews are discounted. The sources have been approved in discussions at Wiki Project Albums. Reliable sources coverage that is independent and secondary is not run of the mill and although the coi is unfortunate it is not a valid reason for deletion and there are no other valid reasons, so the article passes WP:GNG and should remain although it can be edited for neutrality, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple random one-off reviews of completely obscure albums means nothing, other than places need to fill their pages with... pretty much anything, and wannabe musicians will do anything to push their music anywhere that will. None of these albums has any meaningful commercial success or impact, and the sorts of reviews in question are completely run of the mill; absolutely nothing remarkable about it. Unless they'd confer notability on pretty much everyone else they review, which does not appear to be the case, we're left with nothing but that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, your dismissive tone has no basis in policy or guidelines. As I said album reviews in reliable sources as mentioned above plus Drowned in Sound and the Quitous are the main criteria for determining the notability of a musical act. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. I hazard to guess that this is the most obviously notable musician article in this AfD category and of course if the albums are reviewd in five or six reliable sources they are not obscure and the reviews are not random, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Cedd's College, Cambridge

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

Fictional entity mentioned in at least three seemingly unrelated works of fiction, mostly unreferenced, so it's really a mix of OR and FANCRUFT. I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " PROD was challenged (with no helpful edit summary), so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage of this college on other sites is really good thus fate of this page is unimportant. People will find the information regardless of this discussion's end. GorgonaJS (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which speaks to Notability. —¿philoserf? (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What "other sites"? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The works this fictional college appeared in are actually related somewhat - it was created by Douglas Adams for an incomplete Dr. Who serial he wrote, and then later reused for one of his books. However, that doesn't actually make it notable. Its mentioned briefly in plot summaries of both the Dr. Who serial and the book, but I'm not finding anything actually in-depth about it beyond that in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One Doctor Who story (never broadcast due to not being finished, although "completed" versions have been released in various media) and one Dirk Gently novel are partly set there, but in neither of these works by Adams do you find out much about the College or its staff/students beyond a few characters, so there is not enough notability or context for an article in my view - it can easily be covered in appropriate detail at List of fictional Cambridge colleges and the Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and Shada articles. Dunarc (talk) 22:45, 4 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 10:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crossing, Maine

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

Re-created after October 2020 PROD - per that PROD (not by me): "Road crossing, not community. Notability not established with substantive sources: Results in newspapers.com are about a road crossing landmark, not community".

My own WP:BEFORE search echos this, I can't find any info on a populated place named "Russell Crossing" in Maine - I can find some database listings, but without a population. Looking at this on Google maps (with satellite view) doesn't show a community either - just looks like a road crossing. Unless actual coverage can be found, I don't think this passes WP:GEOLAND. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I did find some newspaper results but they invariably mention it in passing as a landmark, not a community. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any coverage at all of Russell Crossing being a populated place, besides spam auto-generated "hotels in russell crossing"-type listings. Aerin17 (t • c) 19:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This user has created a number of stubs on places around the world, all cited to non-publicly available sources like this one has. It's strange how scattered they are, I don't see why I should trust those as existing or notable when there's this too. Reywas92^Talk 14:33, 8 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnsteinn Ólafsson

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

No in-depth coverage on his career to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN. Perhaps I'm missing something due to the language barrier, but I cannot find any WP:RS covering him. – DarkGlow • 13:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in the Icelandic media.[40][41][42][43][44][45]. Alvaldi (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources shared above establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets WP:GNG --—— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – articles with sources that are almost exclusively in relatively obscure languages like Islandic are often a little hard to judge, but the links that Alvadi has been kind enough to supply above do convince me that keeping the article in question wouldn't be a misinterpretation of our guidelines, even if I have to rely on machine translations to assess them. Given that this is all but certainly an autobiography, it may need some further clean-up, but I think we're generally in the clear. AngryHarpy‍^talk 19:41, 4 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. As this keeps getting recreated and deleted at AfD, the title is protected again, any honest efforts to recreate this article should be done in draft space. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Javaid Anwar

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Non notable poet, was twice deleted at afd Lavalizard101 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just reverted an inappropriate blanking of this afd by User:WeLeventae. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The last versions of the article were not as good as they are now. So the nom reason is not very good. Also, there is a citation of The News/Jang Media which is Pakistan's biggest media network. Pakistan's largest media network covering news about Javaid is very notable. Also, sorry for the blanking. User:WeLeventae 22:07 28 August 2021 (UTC)— WeLeventae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The news ref only mentions him and the Jang Media piece is an obituary written by a friend, as such neither of these class as RS counting towards notability. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— WeLeventae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

—

Yes, I have only made edits on Javaid Anwar, so? What does that have to do with this deletion discussion?

Comment: PInging editors from previous afds for the opinion @Cabayi and Saqib:. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lavalizard101, you should ping ALL contributors or none otherwise you may appear to be WP:SOLICITing. Pings to Dusti & Pharaoh of the Wizards. Cabayi (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pakistan Today, Express Tribune and even Rekhta cover info about the poet so I think this should not be deleted since three very notable and famous websites cover info about this. User:Rimsha Mustafa Khan 22:25 28 August 2021 (UTC)

— Rimsha Mustafa Khan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete I couldn't find anything helpful about this person. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 04:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt no assertion of notability. Cabayi (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added citations of Pakistan Today, Express Tribune, Geo News, UrduPoint and also Rekhta. How are all these websites not notable. I also added list of books and I am continuing to improve the article. Please this article should stay. I dont understand why such pathetic articles like Bir Masih Saunta can stay on Wiki whereas Javaid Anwar can't? User:WeLevantae 10:02 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep: The article is suitable for an average wiki article for a poet. The article is just like Shakeb Jalali, Hasan Abidi and other . Also agree with Rimsha Mustafa Khan's point. User:Biskut Merry 11:17 28 August 2021 (UTC)

WeLevantae, Biskut Merry, the fact that your argument has the shortcut WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should tell you all you need to know. If you think, in good faith, that other articles merit deletion, nominate them. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, Ok, sorry mate I didnt knew about that policy. Biskut Merry (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WeLeventae, as three of the above participants are likely socks. Curbon7 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment In response to this, if you are a sock, this article would have been created in violation of policy and the keep votes here would be in violation as well thus the article would be deleted per policy, also please remain civil. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not seeing many sources establishing notability. Main one is from Express Tribube. The others are either passing mentions, or primary source hosts (Rekhta hosts poetry but doesn't establish notability in of itself)

"Urdu poetry: Funeral for Dr Javed Anwar today". The Express Tribune. 2011-11-27. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
"Voices, Heard and Unheard | Pakistan Today". archive.pakistantoday.com.pk. Retrieved 2021-09-12.

Delete absent better sourcing, there are currently only two independent sources that mention him somewhat in depth. The other sources are acceptable for the article, but not in establishing notability. Are there reliable sources written in Urdu, which is perfectly acceptable? I am surprised none have been included so far. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:42, 12 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. Consensus reached is that the article passes WP:NFF. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead for a Dollar

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

Film does not meet WP:NFF. There is evidence that production has begun, but the production has not been notable. The film has received mundane coverage (cast/crew announcements) but nothing beyond this. This should be in draft space until notability guidelines at WP:NF are met. BOVINEBOY2008 02:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – How is a Walter Hill-directed Western starring Christoph Waltz, Willem Dafoe, and Rachel Brosnahan not notable? While filming has indeed been confirmed by large publications (the Albuquerque Journal), these A-list castings alone should make it pass WP:NFF. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Who is attached to the film does not determine its notability. BOVINEBOY2008 22:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace Certainly seems notable, but we don't have a release date, studio or platform of where it's going. Until then, it should remain either in the original editor's sandbox or in draftspace. Nate • (chatter) 02:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quiver Distribution has confirmed it will theatrically release the film. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still needs to be dated, and it can always go to a streamer instead for the right price/contract terms (or as seen with past collabs, pushed to Redbox and their streaming service). Until then, the article should stay in draftspace. Nate • (chatter) 02:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel it holds the necessary components for a healthy stub article. It’s begun filming so it’s not jumping the premature gun and has decent enough production citation. I would note that the information about this being Waltz and Hills returns to the genre is largely superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 03:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles(...)Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." In this case, the reliable Albuquerque Journal article confirmed that filming for this movie has begun in Santa Fe, New Mexico and the article was published after filming begun. WP:NFF also states, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Thanks to the Albuquerque Journal article, the production is notable. Why would a newspaper publish an article about a film in production starring such notable actors as two time Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz and four time Oscar-nominee Willem Dafoe? Because it's notable. The Film Creator (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GNG, we need the coverage to be significant. The Albequerque article is mostly a reprint of the material in the trade announcements, plus a few comments about how it is being filmed locally and employing local cast and crew members. IMV, it is largely a fluff piece. There were no quotes taken from the production team in the creation of the article, no critique of the production, I don't believe it constitutes as significant coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 19:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well sourced in both industry websites, and regional ones. Furthermore, we have sufficient detail on the film for it to built upon. Finally, principal photography has begun. This all leads me to the conclusion that the article passes NFF, and that the article should remain. JustaFilmFan (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFF.4meter4 (talk) 22:03, 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 keep. No consensus to delete this and the unverifiability concern has been addressed in the AfD. The promo issues can be dealt with through editing. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca de la Garza

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

Spam and Unverifiability Cureitlitte (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can see the COI... Somehow the entire article doesn't mention the link to the Richard Hajjar scandal. However it probably isn't a G11, and she is easily notable being a TV star in the Boston market for several years. GNG coverage: 2021, 2020 [46], 2016, 2015, 2009, and quite a bit more.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have toned down the promotional part and added the more notable Hajjar connection: diff.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Cureitlitte, while I agree the article contained quite a bit of spam when you nominated I am perplexed by the fact that you added this spam to begin with (to a not overly spammy article created by User:ButterflyBetterFly two hours prior to your first edit to it (3rd edit overall). Any explanation here for the change in heart here? --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for edit, however I'm afraid my research on the said personality might affect with the sense of reputation. Cureitlitte (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still promotional and coverage is WP:ROUTINE for a journalist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is still promotional can be removed. She is out of journalism for several years, though being WCVB is not insignificant, she is more significant for her recent dealings. User:MrsSnoozyTurtle how are: Boston Magazine (2021), Boston Herald: Bianca de la Garza ‘should have known’ cash from CFO boyfriend was stolen, company says, Bianca de la Garza is firing back — at the media routine in an way? This is in-depth independent coverage on her.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do those sources overcome WP:NOTSCANDAL? There does appear to be WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability without an WP:UNDUE focus on Hajjar, who pled guilty to embezzelment after financing several of her business ventures, which led to her becoming subject to a lawsuit that resolved with a confidential settlement. Sources that independently support her notability without relying on allegations, innuendo, or rumor include Bianca de la Garza on Redefining Beauty, Raising Her Daughter and Embracing Her Latinidad (People 2019), Meet Bianca de la Garza: The woman moving up the ranks in late-night, (Insider 2015), and The anchors next door Newscasters David Wade and Bianca de la Garza maintain life as normal suburban couple in Tewksbury (Lowell Sun 2007). Beccaynr (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage found by Eostrix and Beccaynr. She easily meets gng but the page really does need to be cleaned up for balance. There's no way it shouldn't mention the Hajjar thing. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is kind of weird to add all that promotional stuff to the page, only to nominate it for deletion because of the spam 2 months later. Why bother adding it in the first place? BuySomeApples (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per WP:BASIC by Beccaynr. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr.4meter4 (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vapid promotional spam with negligible sources except social media. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Xxanthippe: look at the initial version of the article by ButterflyBetterFly. All of the promotional stuff was later added by Cureitlitte in a series of edits in July. Later, in August, Cureitlitte nominates it for deletion saying it is spam. I agree that what Cureitlitte added was spam, but this wasn't the initial state of the article and other editors have mitigated at least some of the spam (while correcting notable omissions). The deletion nomination came after this talk page post titled "Supported by embezzlement" which was a notable omission. If an article is hijacked into a spammy form and nominated for deletion by the hijacker that's not a good reason for deletion. There are tons of vapid social media posting and PR releases on de la Garza, however there are also several critical in-depth good reliable sources that cover her.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the care with which you have examined this BIO. Unfortunately I think that the sources you show are just as trivial as the one at present. My vote to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:49, 12 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Française de México

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

Promotionally-written article that relies 100% on primary sources. Speedy deletion was declined but this appears to be WP:SPAM. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 16:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 16:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 16:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 16:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. The article has the same structure as the other articles from other French alliances, which speaks of the characteristics of these educational centers. Also, several such as Chicago, San Francisco, and so on, have primary sources. Can you please explain to me why these are not nominated for a speed delete and this one is?--Javier Alejandro Herrera Carvajal (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Javier Alejandro Herrera Carvajal: Articles should not 100% rely on primary sources and should have some secondary sources and tertiary sources to verify notability and pass WP:GNG. The reason your article was nominated for deletion is because that was the one that happened to be in the new pages while page reviewing. I took a look just now at the other Alliance Française articles, and those, if not at least some of them, should probably be also considered for deletion, as they're all similarly structured and written and also use only primary sources. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 17:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: Okay, so on my part, I don't see why to keep the page. I looked for third-party sources, all of them talk about courses at a commercial level, and not about the importance of the Alliance Française of Mexico City as an institution. I do not see any future for the article fallowing the rules described. If you could be so kind, what advice would you give me to improve the way to write such kind of articles in the future. I think you mentioned at the beginning that the article is written as promotional. My intention is to create articles that describe French alliances from diverse regions, not to create publicity.

@Javier Alejandro Herrera Carvajal: Any advice I can give you on improving writing articles like this is to check out the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for organizations as well as the Wikipedia manual of style for improving structure if needed. Writing articles on organizations, companies, products, media, and people is much stricter than doing so for species, places, minerals and chemicals etc. since the topics rely on secondary sources and tertiary sources whereas the latter can easily be created with scientific descriptions, GNIS IDs, etc. as references. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 18:29, 9 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) 22:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who can intervene and have an opinion. I suggest allowing the presence on Wikipedia to this page for its non-negotiable encyclopedic content about an organization of cultural exchange as obvious as the French alliance, and one of the first French alliances outside of France. I suggest adding the "^{[citation needed]}" tag as do the Alliance Française of Washington, the Alliance Française of San Francisco, and the Alliance Française of Chicago.--Javier Alejandro Herrera Carvajal (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to try and garner more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced entirely to WP:PRIMARY sources and not evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added a non-primary reference, "Políticas culturales francesas en México" by Carlos Augusto Torres-Zetina, which contains several pages discussing the history of this organisation. AllyD (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: If seen purely as a language lesson centre, this may appear like non-encyclopaedic spam, however there is more to this long-standing AF institute. I added several references, the most substantial being Torres-Zetina's journal article. Its references also indicate coverage in Chaubet's 2006 book "La politique culturelle Française et la diplomatie de la langue: l’Alliance Française (1883-1940)",and there is also available Dumont's 2018 Sorbonne thesis on "La politique culturelle du réseau Alliance Française mexicain et l’image de la France et de la culture française", though that is by someone who worked there. Overall, I think there is just about enough for WP:NORG. AllyD (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per AllyD.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is evidence that the place exists, but not that the place is notable. The new independent sources are not strong enough to establish notability. One appears to be a university essay, the second is a local article about art cinemas in Mexico City, one of which is run by Alliance Française de México, the third is a press release about a music festival which is organised by the Alliance. These are not sources strong enough to establish notability - particularly a global notability. My suggestion is that anything interesting can be mentioned in the parent article Alliance française. SilkTork (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. Sources are weak for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 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.

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 10:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Marsh (fighter)

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

fails WP:MMANOT criteria for only having 2 fights in top tier promotions. also fails WP:GNG as fights are merely routine report. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and I found no significant independent coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and GNG. Cassiopeia talk 09:11, 5 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nimfa Sound

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article shows some edit-warrning, possibly relating to this legal case but that does not confer notability on any company which is involved. Searches find only passing mentions, rather than the coverage needed to demonstrate WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be any references that meet WP:NCORP to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:53, 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. – Joe (talk) 07:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northpoint (skyscraper)

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

Residential building does not meet WP:NBUILDING. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 20:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable condominium, does not meet criteria for WP:NBUILDING. The non-notable "award" is a vanity award: Propertyguru.com's "Thailand Property Award". Basically any architect or a firm who enters this PR award gets it - if they pay for the marketing package - pay-to-play. ~~See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andromeda (skyscraper) for more info on content from the UPE account who has been creating these articles.~~ Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertizing. Netherzone (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "The UPE account who has been creating these articles" did not create this one. This article was created in 2009 (though by an account whose few contributions are all about Raimon Land's projects). --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012 Thank you for pointing that out, I struck the sentence in my comment above, but still maintain the article should be deleted, as I don't think it meets notability requirements, and the sourcing is weak. This article creator has not answered the inquiry on their talk page re: COI, however they are a single purpose editor for Raimond Land development projects. Netherzone (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was something like the 7th tallest building in Thailand upon completion, and the first of a huge wave of skyscraper construction in Pattaya, so there should probably be some coverage in that respect, though I'm finding it elusive. 2008 is over a decade ago, though, so it's possbile there's news coverage that's now offline. What's available online include the usual coverage (mostly PR-based) in the Pattaya Mail[47][48][49], a piece about the Pattaya real estate landscape from a website of Hotels.com[50], a review on real estate website Think of Living (no, I still say it's far from proven that it's sponsored content)[51], and an article on the website of real estate agent Town & Country Property, which, while glowingly positive, seems to reflect the author's assessment and doesn't appear to be sponsored, though a real estate agent probably doesn't exactly qualify as a reliable source[52]. There are some magazine results in Google Books as well[53], but no previews available so hard to say what the degree of coverage is. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is the kind of prestige project that normally generates third-party coverage, and the Art and AsiaPacific snippet found via Google Books search suggests that there are sources that aren't quite easily available as we're looking decade late. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul_012. What makes you say this is a "prestige project"? Also, could you please post the link of the Art and AsiaPacific snippet that you are referring to? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one generally doesn't go around building the tallest building outside of Bangkok if not aiming for prestige. Mentions by the South China Morning Post also suggest so: "The developer is leading Thailand's luxury condominium charge with The River project in Bangkok ... and Northpoint Condominium Pattaya."[54] "In November, Raimon Land will launch the high-end luxury condominium complex Northpoint in Pattaya. The development is already 20 per cent sold, proving the high demand for this location."[55] Search snippets can't be linked, I think. It's the first one shown in the Google Books link in my above comment. (I can't quite tell though whether it's from a piece of coverage or an advertisement, which is why I only said that it suggests that there are more sources: "Featuring an exceptional mix of luxurious and spacious residences, majestic gardens and a world of recreational choices, Northpoint is quite simply Pattaya's most sought-after beachfront address.") --Paul_012 (talk) 06:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paul for the explanation and for sharing those links. In my opinion, they are passing mentions but indeed they do hint at notability being possible with more sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Netherzone.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 19 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) 07:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Superboy and the Legion

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

Story arc of a comic book series, no clear real-world notability. The article's "references" are all to comic books - no secondary sourcing. My attempts to find sourcing for this only found sourcing for the similarly-named Legion of Super-Heroes. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - A minor, two issue long story. There is not a single valid source being used in the article, and searches turn up nothing significant, as this was not a notable storyline. There are a number of similarly titled stories throughout DC comics history that come up in searches, but this particular storyline fails the WP:GNG completely. Rorshacma (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 19 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 Rename (title TBD). This is an unfortunately messy discussion, with a lot of folks talking past each other. It's fairly clear there's some source material discussing the revival of roman pagan traditions. It's also clear this particular title does not have support. So the article shouldn't exist at this title, but that's not an argument to delete it (as an aside, an article title does not have to have google hits for the subject to be notable, so long as the subject has sources about it; titles are sometimes descriptive; see WP:NDESC). The AfD has run for three weeks, and there's no consensus as to the title; so I'm going to IAR a little, and close this as "rename" but with no specific title, instead requiring that the title be determined via talk page discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cultus Deorum (Modern Religion)

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

Either an elaboate hoax or really non-notable neopaganism. No independent sources. Before nominating I deleted some really bizarre statements, such as they purchased a plot of land in Vorkuta. Do you know what is Vorkuta? Lembit Staan (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See my amended suggestion in the "Comment for the closer below, a "soft deletion", so to say. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the source that was cited for the Vorkuta plot of land, you'll see that they really did do this, apparently for the purpose of using it as a ritual site. If there are Russian members of CD then that wouldn't be specially weird, I guess. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right. Still, (a) the ref is from a forum hence low credibility. (b) the organization name is "Roman Republic " (Res Publica Romana) and has no mention of "Cultus Deorum", with "Roman Republic" claiming about 100 people, hence thoroughly nonnotable anyway. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your hypothesis about "Russian members". I have found the Russian term for the menioned Provincia Sarmatia "subsidiary": Провинция Сарматия. They do have a vkontakte presence, but there is no info in Russian language that they have something in Vorkuta. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the funny thing. The post in question comes form "ROman Republic" while "Провинция Сарматия" itself claims it is part of Nova Roma. And here is the punchline: Nova Roma declares "Roman Republic" to be a competing organization.. In other words, all this is brain games of several dozen of kids. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The second reference links to The rise of the blockchain in the casino industry... What we have here is an elaborate hoax. Jupiter Optimus Maximus indeed! --Whiteguru (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is really a hoax, we may need to notify the Catalan, Spanish, Esperanto, Interlingua, Italian, and Portuguese wikis as well. wizzito | say hello! 07:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment, can anyone with a good understanding of Italian look through the sources on the Italian version of the page? wizzito | say hello! 07:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Italian source 1 - is a definition of the word 'gentilita', nothing to do with "via romana agli dei", the subject of the article. A few more? #2, the traditional Roman movement, does mention the subject (twice) as one of several names; an informed page, but the website Saturnia Tellus appears to be a primary source for the Roman "religion". #3 just defines neopaganism; Athame seems to be a magazine on that topic. #4 (in English) is about "Romuva" religion denied by the Lithuanian parliament, maybe that's a synonym? #5 is the Pagan Federation Italia, the article doesn't mention "via romana agli dei". #6 is just a footnote with a pointer to books including "The Private Cult of Ancient Rome", 2 vols, in Italian. #7 is the one word "Raucci", your guess as good as mine. #8 is a footnote about three Rs, Romanism, Renaissance, and [Italian] Revolution. #9 links a statute of Saturnia Tellus (as above). #10 is an offline ref to an article on paganism and ancient gods in a local newspaper, Corriere di Verona. #11 is to Ad Maiora Vertite, an article about a project to study the Roman Cult. #12 is a local newspaper article about an archaeological park with reenactments; it doesn't mention the "via romana". Finally #13 is a Facebook page called "Communitas Populi Romani", it says it's a religious organisation; the article says its a group of students, started in 2013, who like history and religion of ancient Rome. Much of the article concerns (other) groups interested in Roman traditions. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the Spanish Wiki article has no inline citations; it cites a 1996 book in its Bibliography, in Italian, "The Traditionalist Roman Movement". It has 9 External links, 8 of them in Italian. The Spanish one is a dead link, at least it seems to have been taken over by something written in ?Chinese? ideograms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added three sources and at least the first one is definitely an RS, although it's not available online and I don't have access to it. Ffranc (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And I deleted these sources because you didnt add any info related to article subject, i.e., Cultus Deorum. Lembit Staan (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how it works. If the article is poorly sourced you add sources, and that's what I did. Ffranc (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that's how it works. You expanded the article with sources and text that do not speak of the article subject, i.e., Cultus Deorum. And I reverted you addition per WP:COATRACK: you cannot fill an article with tangentially related things. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've started a separate discussion on the article's talk page. In short, the subject as it is defined in the article is pretty broad and has several names. Ffranc (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the article was moved in June, and it really shouldn’t have been. A few peop,e use the cultus deorum name, it it isn’t the common name for the not-a-hoax group of new-pagans reviving Roman cultus. Roman pagan Reconstructionism is definitely a thing and is quite assuredly not a hoax. Move back to the previous title and the sources then cover the subject. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This would make sense. However "Roman pagan Reconstructionism"" gives no google hits. One of the old titles, "Italo-Roman neopaganism" does not give reliable sources in first several pages of google search. Which title do you have in mind? Lembit Staan (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider the best name for the article. It seems clear that
- a) this is not a hoax, there really are folks who practice elements of ancient Roman religion.
- b) We already have "Neopaganism in Latin Europe", which however also covers Celtic, Norse, and Shamanistic paganism, so isn't a synonym; and "Nova Roma" which is one instance of "Cultus Deorum" or whatever we're going to call it. Lembit Staan, "Cultus Deorum" is not the name of a single branch, but a general description for the practice of all the various groups dotted around Europe (including Russia, it seems). Deleting citations because they name particular groups is a "category error", i.e. you're mistaking the part-of relationship for "is not about the same subject", but the materials were in fact highly relevant and should be restored, probably with some introduction ("this is a list of groups who practice the Cultus Deorum in some form", for instance). You may well be correct that since many people now have no Latin, a Latin name is difficult as people will guess wrongly that CD is a label rather than a general description. Hope this is clear to you now.
- c) It does seem that the June 2021 move was a bit hasty, per Ealdgyth. That seems to me to mean a clear and definite Keep, but the choice of name needs careful discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Chiswick Chap:, Sorry, colleague, it is not established that Cultus Deorum is "a general description" of whatever you think is described. Therefore adding texts into this article based on sources which do not establish connection with "Cultus" is a plain symple case of original research. As for renaming, please see above my remark. The first and foremost solution is to find reliable sources which somehow group whatever is groupable and use the term they are using. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a little-studied but nonetheless existing new religious movement. The concept of "reconstructionism" is indeed what Lembit Staan calls "a brain game", as it has been spread from American/English-language blogs which obviously don't constitute actual religious organisations (the same problem applies to articles about other "reconstructionisms" in Wikipedia). The current version of the article has one academic source (Hans Thomas Hakl, 2009) which calls the movement "Roman-Italic Tradition", thus I think that the article should be moved to the title "Roman-Italic Tradition (new religious movement)" in conformity with other well-written articles on modern Pagan religions (e.g. the WP:FA "Heathenry (new religious movement)"). At least one organisation of the movement, Pietas (it calls the religion itself "Roman Tradition"), has been recognised as a legal entity by the state of Italy ("Italy formally recognizes Religio Romana organization", The Wild Hunt); this organisation appears to have established various temples in Italy. Another organisation has established a temple in Poltava, Ukraine (Temple of Jupiter Perennus). There is an organisation in Russia, too; it calls the religion Cultus Deorum and publishes the magazine Adoratio.--Æo (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the closer: It is established here that this current title is a result of an inept page move. On the other hand, other suggested titles are not confirmed by reliable sources and therefore we cannot verify whether this article is a WP:SYNTH/original research of wikipedians trying to group something not grouped in reliable sources. Therefore a proper descsion IMO would be is to MOVE to draft space until the article become acceptable. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable at all. --RamotHacker (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, as per Lembit Staan. As we cannot rule this out as a hoax, it shouldn't stay up. For the same reason, we shouldn't flat out delete it. If someone could definitively rule it out either way, I would happily change my !vote. Ifnord (talk) 16:48, 12 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. There is wide agreement that there are sufficient sources about the topic to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenslime

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

Non-notable book, fails WP:NB. I couldn't find any actual sources, just sites where I could purchase the book from along with the plot. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftfy: A quick search revealed two reviews for the book, one from Publishers Weekly and another from the Booklist. The book just released, so more reviews might show up. Isabelle ^🔔 22:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote after having found a third review. Isabelle ^🔔 00:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Publishers Weekly review is not significant, and I cannot find further reviews - including the booklist one. User:Isabelle Belato, could you link it in case we can find a couple more reliable sources that would allow us to save it? BilledMammal (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Publishers Weekly review; SLJ review; I'm not sure I can link the Booklist one, since it's via a subscriber service, but can be easily found on ProQuest. Considering there are at least three reviews ou there, this would qualify the book under WP:NBOOK. Isabelle ^🔔 00:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Publishers Weekly one is the one I was looking at; unfortunately, I don't believe it qualifies as significant coverage, consisting of just a single paragraph with most covering the plot of the book; thank you for the SLJ one, I didn't manage to find it myself, but unfortunately I believe it has the same issues as the PW one - though perhaps I am too harsh in my assessment of what constitutes "significant".

In regards to the Booklist one, I don't believe there is ever any harm in linking something, just as there would not be any harm in referencing it, but I might be wrong. BilledMammal (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The PW review is certainly WP:SIGCOV: it "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content," it "is more than a trivial mention," and (not necessary, but worth mentioning), the book is "the main topic of the source material." Multiple reviews in reliable sources = notable book. pburka (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with mulitple ie. 3 reviews including pw (ref to review in artilce), Booklist (review here), slj (review here (sub required )). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has enough reviews in reliable sources, including Publishers Weekly. Significant coverage is not determined based on the length of an article or review about a subject, it is about the subject being the main focus of the article or review.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did another search of my own (thank you User:DanCherek for pointing me towards ProQuest as an excellent source), and found a few more references such as [56]. As such, I've withdrawn my previous !vote. BilledMammal (talk) 10:23, 6 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. Concerns about article cleanup are outside the scope of this AfD. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independents for Frome

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

Organisation fails our ORG and GNG guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties and should not be used to host pencil sketches of political parties just because they exist, but rather because of what they have achieved outside merely being formed to fight elections, which is where I believe this article falls down. No evidence of importance, notability, or achievement outside those expected for a political party. The decision to focus on parish elections and phrases like "flatpack democracy" are notability red-flags for me. doktorb _words^deeds 06:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the two lengthy news articles separated by a number of years, in national newspapers (and already cited in the article). See also the study published in "Environmental Policy and Governance". Seriously, if we deleted all articles about political parties because they'd achieved nothing "outside those expected for a political party" we'd have no articles left. Sionk (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sionk. This is a highly-unusual non-partisan grouping, probably unique at town council level in English local government. Not only has it been the subject of two separate national newspaper articles (cited on the page), but it was the principal subject of a March 2021 academic study, Flatpack democracy: Power and politics at the boundaries of transition (open access). Note that in paragraph 4 the authors say "Frome's case is important as the key protagonists for sustainable transitions were a group of “independent” councillors who claimed to encourage inclusion and diversity". Clearly this is a notable organisation. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I would also note two further academic works, Alternative organization and neo-normative control: notes on a British town council a journal article by Emil Husted, and Planning for Transitions? A case study of Frome a PhD thesis from Amy Burnett. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-written the article with additional material and several new sources. Independents for Frome seems to have been, and continues to be, a quite influential group within English local politics. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested contributors to seek a re-evaluation after the expansion of this article: @Doktorbuk:, @Abdulhaseebatd:, @Sionk:, @Geschichte:, @RoanokeVirginia:, @Bungle: MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Michael. I do have serious issues with the opening paragraphs - uncited, "blog"-style in nature, and all that stuff about "flatback democracy" or whatever it is reads very strangely for what is a (very) minor political party. I can see you've done a lot of work, mind, and that is good. It's the lead which is still making me wrinkle my nose. doktorb _words^deeds 05:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead isn't "uncited" at all: every single statement in it is fully supported by an RS in the body of the article. You're evidently proud - according to your user page - to have purged so many non-notable parties from the enyclopedia, but I'm sure you are aware that none of your nose-wrinkling comments constitute any continuing basis for deletion. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me pressing "delete". On a dozen+ occasions, the wider community and closing editors have agreed with me that minor political parties shouldn't have a freely hosted blog page disguised as a Wikipedia article. I've always tried to use this distinction - the Official Monster Raving Loonies have yet to win an election, but they have a cultural impact beyond the ballot box; grouplets like this have nothing comparable. Yes, I am proud that over the years I have helped in remove non-notable groups/organisations from Wikipedia, just as any editor should be proud in tidying up the project and removing advertising/spam etc. doktorb _words^deeds 10:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a win for the encyclopedia if your nomination results in a much-improved article which is kept once notability has been clearly established. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are a matter for clean-up, not a deletion rationale. As MichaelMaggs says, the lede is a summary of an article, so citations aren't necessary if the 'fact' is already cited in the body of the article. Clean-up is better discussed elsewhere, anyway. Sionk (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG per sources in the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No comment on the content but the subject is notable enough to have an article by passing WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 16:35, 12 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 Earth in science fiction. This is clearly a messy topic, but there's consensus that 1) This article isn't worth preserving as is, though the history is worth keeping; and 2) Earthling (disambiguation) should be moved to this title, and this moved to Earthling (science fiction). Vanamonde (Talk) 08:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earthling

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

Having recently expanded Earth in science fiction (hopefully a GA in the near future), I stumbled upon this. I am afraid the concept of Earthlings is not notable, as a stand-alone - and for what little it is, I already included the properly referenced discussion of this in the 'Earth in sf' article. Additionally, there is next to nothing to merge - the content here is either unreferenced, or referenced to primary sources. Also, there are dubious claims - for example the term 'Gaians' is in the lead, but it is not mentioned at all in the literature I reviewed (and even plain old google search doesn't help much, plus our disambig on Gaian doesn't even point back here). The lit review/BEFORE I did already accounted for "Earthlings, Earthers, Earthborn, Earthfolk, Earthians, Earthies, Earthmen (and Earthwomen), Earthsiders, Solarians, Tellurians, or Terrans", all of which are mentioned in the new big article (a few may still need redirects...). On a side note, there is totally no good reason to argue that 'Earthlings' is a more popular term than Terrans or Earthmen or such (the naming is subjective and reinforces OR in this tiny essay-ish article). As such, since I don't think there is anything to merge, I propose that this is just redirected to Earth in science fiction (no objection to WP:SOFTDELETE, no need for erasure of history). Ping User:Daranios and User:TompaDompa who were involved in some related discussions about 'Earth in sf' and who probably did their own BEFORE on related aspects already. PS. Interested readers may also want to comment on Talk:Venus_in_fiction#Merge_lists_from_Venusians, a relevant proposal from last year that went unnoticed till now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Mixture of WP:DICDEF and WP:OR. -LaundryPizza03 (d c¯) 06:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -LaundryPizza03 (d c¯) 06:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -LaundryPizza03 (d c¯) 06:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "Earthling" is more frequent than other forms in science fiction stories, but it's the best-known term in general pop culture (outside science fiction fandom). Cartoons of little green men in flying saucers saying "foolish earthlings" have been pretty well known for decades, at least in the United States (now often associated with Kang and Kodos from the Simpsons, I guess, but probably predating them...) AnonMoos (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record Gaian does point back here through the redirect at Gaian (demonym). —¿philoserf? (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I guess. I find this a tough one. A search leads to a lot of instances where the term is used, but I did not see much really about it. If someone were to find more to contribute to a proper article, I'd be happy to hear about it. Otherwise I guess this mostly belongs to the Wiktionary article. I do however find it quite important that there are uses in two, well actually three, quite different contexts: one the sci-fi context as in "An inhabitant of Earth, as opposed to one of another planet"; then the older usage, especially in the Christian and Jewish tradition "An inhabitant of Earth, as opposed to one of heaven"; and then I've seen modern usage emphasizing it encompasses ALL beings from Earth with no distinction between human and animal. To allow for these distinct usages, my idea would be to rename this into Earthling (science fiction) and then redirect it to Earth in science fiction, thereby preserving the history for possible future use (in case new sources are found) and having the right articles point to Earth in science fiction. And as a following step rename Earthling (disambiguation) to Earthling. Daranios (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of proposed moves/renames/redirects. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move disambiguation page there This seems like a pure WP:DICDEF/WP:OR. Not opposed to redirection as well, but it doesn't seem to need it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm The term 'Earthling' is mentioned in Earth in science fiction so I'd think it is a logical redirect; plus it is also plausibly searchable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earth in science fiction. Some of its content could be selectively merged and repurposed to discuss the role of humanity from a sci fi perspective. Haleth (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Haleth Humanity in science fiction should be a notable topic, I concur. Whether it is, it depends on existence of sources. I'll add this one to my to do list :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Humanity" has an entry in the The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy, at least. TompaDompa (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @TompaDompa Nice find, but I can't access that page. I checked the other reference works (for "human/ity") and found nothing there. If you feel like it, maybe something from Greenwood could be added to the "Earth in..." article, or maybe start a 'in popular culture/in fiction' section under Human ("humanity" is a disambig)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's weird, I'm able to access it just fine. We're getting increasingly off topic, but suffice it to say that there isn't really anything there that would be a good fit for Earth in science fiction, and I stand by my previous statements (e.g. [57]) about "in popular culture"/"in fiction" sections being a bad idea in general. TompaDompa (talk) 18:02, 8 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. Though this is numerically just 2:1, the discussion has seen substantive source analysis demonstrating the inadequacy of the provided sources; as such there is consensus to delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summum (magazine)

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

Notability not clearly established by reliable sources. Checked Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, while there are many results returned about "summum" (especially summum bonum, or more rarely Summum the religious group), I can't find any results about this magazine. The only cite contained in the article is to a French language press release issued by the magazine itself, so obviously not a sufficient source for establishing notability. Mr248 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Mr248 (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is currently a requested move open which is relevant to this article – Talk:Summum#Requested_move_1_September_2021 – which is how I came across it. @162 etc., Crouch, Swale, and Gentleman wiki: since you've all expressed some interest in this article. Mr248 (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see articles from Huffpost, Radio-Canada, JdQ, JdM. 162 etc. (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@162 etc.: Looking at your sources:
- JdM is a brief blog post addressing some controversy over whether one of their advertisements was sexist; it provides almost no details on the controversy (who is calling it sexist? it doesn't say), or information to measure how significant the controversy was, just the blog post author's disagreement with the sexism allegation
- JdQ is an article about how the winner of a reality TV show, Cintia de Sà, appeared on the magazine's cover; Cintia de Sà does not appear to be notable, there is no article about her on any Wikipedia (I individually checked English, French, Spanish and Portuguese, and the lack of a Wikidata item suggests there isn't one on any other either).
- Huffpost is a blog post about how the magazine put a transgender woman on its front cover for the first time ever
- Radio-Canada is about a political controversy over government money given to this magazine
I would say the first three are all low quality sources. Putting a transgender woman on a men's magazine cover is laudable from a diversity and inclusion perspective, but not really notable unless the magazine is especially famous and the act gets widespread media coverage or turns into a significant political or cultural controversy; I see no evidence any of that is the case here, so the Huffpost blog post doesn't really demonstrate notability. Some controversy over whether an advertisement is sexist, without any details to indicate how significant or widespread this controversy was, doesn't demonstrate notability either. Magazines put non-notable reality TV winners on their covers all the time. So that doesn't demonstrate notability either. The only source here which I would say is high quality and potentially serious evidence of notability is the Radio-Canada article. However, I don't think a single controversy over giving government money to a magazine is enough by itself to make the magazine notable, unless the controversy turned into a major political scandal resulting in resignations, changes of government, criminal charges, etc, and I see no evidence of that here. If this magazine was involved in lots of political controversies, and those political controversies were all covered in higher quality reliable sources like Radio-Canada, that may well be sufficient for notability. But a single controversy like this isn't. So even after considering your sources, I still think this is non-notable. Mr248 (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't see what we might call JdM2, which your JdM1 linked to – JdM2 – that does have a few more details – it quotes Julie Miville-Dechêne calling the magazine's advertisement sexist–Miville-Dechêne is now a Canadian senator, although she wasn't yet at the time the article was written. That's a little bit better. We might say we have two small political controversies about this magazine (one over government funding and one over an allegedly sexist advertisement.) But the only sources I can find about the sexist advertisement are JdM and JdQ, who are obviously not independent of each other. So a minor social and political controversy without multiple independent quality sources still doesn't amount to much for notability. Mr248 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Some minor so-called "controversy" years ago hardly meets the significant coverage criterion. Gentleman wiki (talk) 15:58, 6 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boldo

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

Paralympic competitor who failed to medal. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTRACK which states athletics athletes are presumed notable if they have competed in the Olympics. NemesisAT (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @NemesisAT: Subject never competed at the Summer Olympics. He is a Paralympic athlete. They are not the same event. A discussion about the notability of Paralympic competitors is currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) if you would like to add your input. JTtheOG (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:NOLYMPICS per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per NemesisAT. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My presumption is that paralympic athletes *should* be notable, but that when the question is raised we should check whether they actually are notable, according to GNG. In this case, all I can find is [58]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While they are presumed to be notable, notability is demonstrated, not inherited. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:12, 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.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro Par

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

Paralympic competitor who failed to medal. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails guideline with only registered competition being very low-key. Geschichte (talk) 21:11, 4 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 10:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Sollique

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

Paralympic competitor who failed to medal. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:31, 4 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 10:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leoncio Ochoa

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

Paralympic competitor who failed to medal in three different events. Subject fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:26, 4 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) 07:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staingate

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

Non notable. The topic has only gained note within a very small section of a very specific tech-blog sphere. I suspect this issue gained an article, where other issue have not, because of its catchy name and maybe a few customers peeved enough to write about it. Alhough at first glance it appears to meet sourcing requirements, almost every source is a blog—or, as with the Forbes piece, a “contributor” article. My personal stance is that this issue, following the example of the (even more notable) issues with the Samsung Note 7, should be merged into the page for the MacBook Pro. Letting this article hang on also opens up the doors for articles on every product issue with enough coverage or a catchy name. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Specific niche interest not of general notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 19 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. Geschichte (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Annamkutty Jose

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

Non-notable actor. Subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Article is currently tagged for notability concerns. Most of the sources are press release and interviews. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Sreeram Dilak (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Seems notable as a radio jockey. I found some sources on doing a WP:Before, but not enough to meet GNG. Happy to change my vote to keep if someone comes up with WP:THREE. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 15:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as per nom.Henriklars (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't meet any notability guideline.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:24, 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 redirect to Francis Beer. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-realism

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

This is not a noteworthy concept or theoretical framework in International relations scholarship. The concept is overwhelmingly linked to the work of one scholar: Francis Beer [59][60] (I note that the creator of this article has primarily just edited content that cites Francis Beer). The citations at the bottom of this article do not lend credence to this being a notable concept: it's just a random dump of irrelevant citations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is almost nothing there apart from a lot of references. No discussion of how post-realism has been applied. Athel cb (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Francis Beer as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 4 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 Intrado. Article history will remain if there is future scope for this as an article. No alternate views expressed. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flowroute

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

Not Notable, it is primary a PR Puff Piece —Cliffb (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 28 August 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 04:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Intrado as per WP:ATD. As it stands, references fail the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:20, 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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cantamessa

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

Decently written article, but the subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL as he has not played or coached in a listed league. Even as a coach, he headed a college team on the NCAA Division III level. Otherwise fails WP:GNG as he has not received sufficient in-depth coverage. Even an article like this, which covers his career-best game while playing in college, only mentions him twice. JTtheOG (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Basketball/Notability#:~:text=Players%20are%20deemed%20notable%20if,recognised%20as%20being%20fully%20professional he is notable per 1) Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional. and 2) Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition. Zamekrizeni (talk) 08:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zamekrizeni: The article you linked to is not an official Wikipedia policy or guideline. For the article to be kept, it has to be shown that Cantamessa has the significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there unofficial Wikipedia pages about notability and guidelines? This is pretty confusing and should be changed. Then pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Basketball/Notability#:~:text=Players%20are%20deemed%20notable%20if,recognised%20as%20being%20fully%20professional should be deleted. Also I think that the guidelines at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Basketball are outdated, when a league like the French LNB is not included. Anyway, you are right that according to the notability guideline that you named the article should be deleted. Zamekrizeni (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zamekrizeni: The inclusion of articles on Wikipedia is not merit based (i.e. if a subject played in a certain league or won a certain title), rather it is coverage based, meaning that the subject must have significant coverage in multiple sources. And all athletes must pass WP:GNG regardless of whether they pass WP:NBASKETBALL or other SNG's as is clearly noted in the FAQ at the top of WP:NSPORT. The SNG's are only meant to stop an article from being speedily deleted. Furthermore, failing WP:NBASKETBALL does not mean that an article should be deleted as it just has to show that the subject has received significant coverage. The leagues that are included in WP:NBASKETBALL are those where supposedly 99% of all players are likely to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, even one game wonders and bench warmers. If you can demonstrate that almost all players who have played in the LNB have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then you can propose for it to be added. Alvaldi (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with Pittsburgh Post-Gazette pieces, Washington Post article, and [61]. D3Hoops might work as well. I have long argued that the basketball notability guidelines should be expanded to include players from the German and French leagues, which would include Cantamessa. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo mentions him once and JournalNow twice. Awaiting my newspapers.com account to be accepted to see the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette pieces, and the D3Hoops source does seem decent. JTtheOG (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The D3Hoops source looks to be promo material provided by the school to announce a routine coaching promotion. I don't see any sources with in-depth coverage (modulo the PPG pieces, which I can't access). JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable, independent sources. Examples include (1) "Long shots put Blackhawk grad Cantamessaa in Basketball Hall" - 8 column feature story, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 1, 1998 (part 1/part 2), (2) "Blackhawk's Cantamessa playing a key role at Siena", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan 30, 1997 - an in-depth six-column feature story (part 1/part 2), (3) "Blackhawk grad over-achieves at Siena", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Dec 17, 1997 - another in-depth, 6-column feature story (part 1/part 2, (4) "Another Look - Cantamessa was can't miss for Blackhawk in '90s", Beaver County Times, Oct 3, 2002 (561-word feature available on Newsbank), (5) "Saints' Cantamessa already on target", The Daily Gazette, Oct 18, 1998 (819-word feature available on Newsbank) (6) "Cantamessa Plays Through Injury", The Times Union (Albany, NY), Jan 30, 2000 (443-word article available for fee on Newsbank), (7) "Siena, Cantamessa Ready", The Times Union, Nov 3, 1999, and (8) "Greensboro promotes from within", D3hoops.com, May 22, 2019. See also (9) this, (10) this, (11) this, (12) this/part 2, and (13) this. Cbl62 (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Cbl62.4meter4 (talk) 00:34, 12 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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 01:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Chartered Bank Nepal

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

WP:ORG Notability notice on page for 10 years without improvement. No significant secondary sources. rsjaffe talk 01:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 01:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. rsjaffe talk 01:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 20 August 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 03:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Standard Chartered as WP:CHEAP. Nate • (chatter) 20:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has WP:SIGCOV in newspaper and academia. nirmal (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the national/only stock exchange, fifth oldest class 'A' bank[62], one of only 27 such banks in the country[63][64], AAA rating[65]. In addition to those in the article now, there's some reputable coverage online[66], and comes up in discourses like this one. There's enough coverage is non-reputable online sources[67][68]. This from the rating agency that gave the AAA rating is SIGCOV and should count for GNG. And that's just in English. Considering the fact that all the traditional newspapers do have business pages where I don't see why they'd religiously avoid ever writing about this bank in its 35-year history, I !vote keep per WP:NEXIST. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received plenty of coverage, and is a major bank in the country.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG per sources above and in the article.4meter4 (talk) 00:29, 12 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sayantani Guhathakurta

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACTOR which says, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The actress has surely roles in multiple films/shows that might be notable or not but I do not find anything that's significant with this actress, of course, when we say "multiple". ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 14:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Also, kindly refer to Talk:Sayantani Guhathakurta to know how & why the AfD discussion call has been taken by the nominator. -Hatchens (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens:, hey there, I have been following this discussion lately. I'd like to know your views on WP:NACTOR, (precisely what has been already quoted): Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

I'd want your clarification if having played main roles in 11 feature length commercial movies and 4 popular Television shows doesn't qualify as being "significant role". I understand that you have some valid arguments with the appreciative tone of the article (which can be fixed) but isn't deleteing this article pushing the ball too far? This article gas gone through multiple reviews from draft stage to mainspace, I'm sure the other reviewers who have reviewed this article were not "Paid". Then why should we delete a perfectly noteable and well cited article which exists not just in English but also in other languages?

Thank you

Innocentbunny TALK 02:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article didn't came through "multiple reviews" because it was directly published in the mainspace, rather than being submitted to AfC. That said, you should take back your wrong statements. I'm not able to find that "she has had main/lead roles in those few movies/series which have articles on Wikipedia". Can you provide reliable sources indicating that "her roles weren't just roles but main significant roles...". ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 07:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "well cited". There are about nine citation tags. In such case, it is definitely not "perfectly notable". Did you even look at the history and condition of article? I guess no. That's why you are making absurd statements. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 07:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheAafi, these couple of IDs should focus on enhancing the page so that WP:HEY can be applied. But, instead of doing that they are more keen to justify their opinions. Have you seen the commonality... none of these two IDs talks about the RED FLAGs we raised or questioned. - Hatchens (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Leaving aside the drama of paid editing/coi, it's clear that the actress in question has quite a lot of press in The Times of India where she is the main subject. However, these sources are essentially tabloid type articles rather than serious journalism, and they don't really serve any purpose beyond publicity. (i.e. no serious criticism or review of her work) However, they do indicate a certain level of celebrity and verify that she's had roles within some notable projects which does indicate a certain degree of notability. However, ultimately without any serious reviews of her work it is impossible to determine the significance of these roles in relation to the criteria at WP:NACTRESS, and on their own I don't think they are quality enough RS to meet GNG either. It's possible that some reviews of the films themselves, possibly in foreign language references, could verify that she does meet NACTRESS, but in the absence of any sources of quality deletion is the best option.4meter4 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An early-stage actor who is getting some coverage in a single newspaper, known for supporting early-stage actors. Most of it is interviews, consisting of supporting a specific film. There is very little coverage apart from that, indicating she is non-notable. In the Chikati Gadilo Chithakotudu where she plays the ghost, she is casted 12th. Non-notable at this time. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, for failing to meet WP:NACTOR. Ifnord (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Checked all the notable films/TV serials that are notable (listed on this page) and she is part of. None of them have her in significant role. One proxy to figure this (not a great golden rule but helps) is to check the position in which the subject is listed in the cast section. I usually consider top 2 (sometimes 3 depending on context) as significant roles. Here, if we were being liberal, Chikati Gadilo Chithakotudu could be counted as a significant role (mind you, if we were being liberal which we may decide not to because of all the COI and more). And even if we were, WP:NACTOR required 'multiple' significant roles. If you should argue against this, you should demonstrate how any of the other roles are significant. One way to do this is to establish how she has maximum or next to maximum screen time in any film or show. At the moment, this is not qualifying. In future, it might be. And if you decide to create it in future, do consult the closing admin or other editors involved so that we would all save some time. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. She doesn't appear in any significant roles in multiple movies or etc. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)}
Redirect to Chikati Gadilo Chithakotudu: From a quick look at article, I can see several uncited claims and the sources added are not significant in-depth coverage to qualify for an article under WP:GNG. Neither is WP:NACTOR met, the aforesaid film is the only one in which she had a major role and redirecting to it would be better than deletion imo. She needs one or two more significant roles in a notable production and she will clear WP:NACTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:03, 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.

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 Masoud Zoohori as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Neshat

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

This internet radio station does not meet the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the only round-the-clock Persian media in Australia and covered by reliable sources (for example, The Weekly Review). Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are weak. Coverage is mainly about a journalist who worked for this station that was killed. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree there is only 1 (arguably) IRS source (The Weekly Review). As it stands the page fails WP:GNG. Given that one IRS source was from 2015 it seems unlikely the subject will garner more, but to be fair let's call it at least WP:TOOSOON. Cabrils (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masoud Zoohori who's the owner of the internet station. Fails WP:GNG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyong a source from The Weekly Review. SBKSPP (talk) 03:25, 25 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 Caramel Jack#Discography. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Caramel Jack

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

Nominating this album, and the band's other four albums

None of the albums charted, none of them have received significant coverage (Songs from Love Story has a brief review in Uncut magazine and a longer user-generated one in Drowned in Sound - 1900 has reviews in SoundsXP and Americana UK, neither of which appear to hit the standard for Reliable Sources). There's simply nothing to demonstrate notability per WP:NALBUM. In addition, the only significant contributions to these pages are by an SPA, which suggests a possible COI. Any relevant content could be merged into the band's page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Caramel Jack as WP:ATD, since the band isn't presently up for deletion (this is not an endorsement of their notability, mind you). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Caramel Jack#Discography. All of 'em fail WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Caramel Jack#Discography. 4meter4 (talk) 00:07, 12 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 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CJ LeBlanc

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

Fails WP:GNG; can't find anything that goes in-depth about the subject and his roles appear to be minor. JTtheOG (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:15, 4 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 Samuel P. Huntington. History is preserved to move any relevant information to the main article. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renewalism

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not a noteworthy concept in the field of International relations. While I'm sure some people may have written it, it's not a noteworthy concept. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete. I've found a few references to the phrase in various documents, however they are also passing references and don't cover the term in detail. However, there is a possible exception that will push this over the line; "Progress in International Law", ISBN: 978-90-47-43316-3. However, I do not currently have access to this work, so I have asked WP:RX to look into it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Pajz has been kind enough to look through the book, as well as showing me the index. Unfortunately, no indication that the book has any coverage of the topic, though it does seem like a very interesting read. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Samuel P. Huntington.4meter4 (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samuel P. Huntington, this one-line stub doesn't appear to be likely to either receive expansion or increased notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:31, 12 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. Sources have been provided, and not rebutted; promotional material seems to have been dumped. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naya Dane (singer)

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

Fails WP:NMUSICBIO and was rejected twice in AFC earlier [69] TheChronium 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheChronium 08:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep There's a few Nigerian music sources like TooXclusive,[70] City People Magazine,[71] and Hip Hop World Magazine.[72] I don't know any of these but they're apparently notable publications. This seems like enough to meet gng. The page needs some work but I've already cleaned it up a lot. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Per apt rationale by TheChronium I’m an expert in Nigeria-related sources and I can say expressly say that none of the sources used in the article establish notability. A before search turns up nothing cogent. Celestina007 (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BuySomeApples. Seems to have enough independent RS to pass criteria 1 WP:NMUSICBIO. Celestina007's and the nominator's arguments are not convincing. We have three independent publications with reasonably in-depth coverage, and said sources are quality enough to have their own wikipedia pages and are independently notable media. I'm not seeing anything about the publications themselves to indicate they are unreliable, so in the absence of a cogent argument for deletion it's a keep.4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article by blocked COI account. Best to not waste proper volunteers' time with spam like this. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BuySomeApples and 4meter4. Celestina007 hasn't stated why articles in three notable publications don't establish notability. NemesisAT (talk) 11:20, 12 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 Comparative advantage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauper labor fallacy

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

The term has little over 600 results on Google, doesn't seem notable at all. It presents someone's argument as the ultimate truth by labelling the other side's argument as a "fallacy". The body of the text refers to what "economic theory" says, even though economic theory is the same as philosophy and depends on one's opinions and views. It then shows some "examples" by listing some cherry-picked situations. Overall, it seems like an attempt to "officialise" someone's point of view by having it described by Wikipedia as something uncontroversially true. BeŻet (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 12:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comparative advantage. Alternatively, might be worth a move? What it describes is a real belief in the discipline of economics, but verifying if it is literally called "pauper labor fallacy" would require acquiring 100+ dollar textbooks at the moment, and as nom point out Google hits for that exact term aren't high, so the current title seems suspect. But it's hard to tell what the move target would be without reading the sources. Anyway, it sounds like it's describing "opposition to people who don't like the notion of comparative advantage", so no harm with redirecting there until a better article can possibly be written if the term really is notable. SnowFire (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect would be a bit WP:OR. It has nothing to do with opposition to comparative advantage really, as that's just a trivial fact that, whoever can "produce" a good cheaper (at a lower relative marginal cost) has a comparative advantage. BeŻet (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Redirects are cheap. This article's been around since 2014, a useful redirect won't cause any harm.
  - Also, this is getting off-topic, but that bit on comparative advantage is not really correct - in fact the whole point of the doctrine of comparative advantage is not that whoever can produce a good cheaper "wins" ("marginal" is a huge word here), and it's not trivial as lots of people don't accept it because it leads to counterintuitive results. SnowFire (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think in that case a redirect is a good compromise. BeŻet (talk) 18:26, 7 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. After two relistings, there was not much discussion but the point was made previously that there is significant coverage and the article could be further expanded with the electoral contests in 2021. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the Initiative Party

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

Organisation fails our ORG and GNG guidelines. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties and should not be used to host pencil sketches of political parties just because they exist, but rather because of what they have achieved outside merely being formed to fight elections, which is where I believe this article falls down. No evidence of importance, notability, or achievement outside those expected for a political party. doktorb _words^deeds 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG judging by the national attention the party specifically has received (though sometimes thanks to the high profile of Sasha Johnson) in the Telegraph, Times, The Scotsman and the BBC, already cited in the article. Cut-and-paste deletion rationales don't always work, particularly not in this case. And seriously, if we deleted political party articles because of no "achievement outside those expected for a political party" we'd have no articles left. Sionk (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Normally for a party with a short history and no electoral success I would agree that it is unlikely that it is going to meet notability standards. However, it does seem attracted reasonable coverage for its activities, and I do wonder if this is just enough to take it over the line, though an argument might be made it could be covered at Sasha Johnson for now, as the majority of coverage of the party seems to be included in works covering her. However if kept, it needs work. There is no mention of it contesting any elections, but the Sky News source cited indicates it did contest local elections in 2021, so this could be covered. Equally the article claims it was launched in 2020, but registered with the Electoral Commission in 2017. I am not sure if this is an error (though it does indeed seem to have been registered in 2017), or something that needs clarification (for instance if it was registered, but failed to be active until a formal launch in 2020). Dunarc (talk) 22:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming it was launched to contest elections in May 2020. It also contested some local (London) council seat by-elections at the end of 2020. I agree it will be beneficial to expand on this if the article is kept. Sionk (talk) 00:42, 27 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 12:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 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 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 01:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Hexum

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

Does not satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:BASIC. No sources talk about his career in detail. At most, he has small mentions, but nothing near enough to be notable. – DarkGlow • 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:09, 4 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. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aagneyam

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

Completely unsourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 05:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone who reads Malayalam search for the film by its Malayalam name, ആഗ്നേയം. which means ignition? When I search, I find ml:ആഗ്നേയം, which is a novel that doesn't seem to be related to the film. If the film was a box office success, as the article claims, references ought to exist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 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) 03:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two weeks ago I asked "Could someone who reads Malayalam search for the film by its Malayalam name, ആഗ്നേയം. which means ignition?" I don't think anybody did (or if they did, they didn't report their results). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is not completely unsourced, there is one given, although it is not cited inline. However, it is in a foreign language, which makes verifying the information within harder... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if only to prevent a soft delete. In the absence of a convincing source analysis of the extent foreign language ref, I'm not seeing a strong argument for deletion. No prejudice against renomination if an editor who reads Malayalam come forward to argue for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 20:05, 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Shrivastava

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

The subject is already rejected through afc. And the subject is not meeting WP:GNG. lack of reliable sources. Bapinghosh (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

Logs: 2021-08 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not satisfy acting notability. There is also a declined draft at Draft:Sandeep Shrivastava which has a filmography that is not present in this article. The draft may be capable of being improved and resubmitted and should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I added the filmography from the draft. I think that notability may now be demonstrated. If this article is kept, please do a history merge. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination and subsequent discussion. defcon5 (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:22, 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh

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

The article is about a position within a sub-division of the local government of the Pakistani province of Sindh. While this seems like a distinctly niche topic, I would not object to its notability if there was coverage about the position itself (that is, not about its holders). The article is unreferenced and I have not found any significant coverage of the position. Yes, there is a government website proving that this position exists, but existence does not equal notability according to WP:GNG. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, because there are many positions such as those of Ministers which are junior to SMBR. SMBR even according to Wikipedia's page on Sindh Government regards SMBR as one of Sindh's top positions. Categories can be easily added and I recommend that they are done at the soonest.

Comment No significant coverage cited. Improvement needed by adding more independent, reliable sources. Multi7001 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement needed to add more independent sources. There are official websites on this position, suggesting its importance, however more verification is needed. Suggestion to give deadlines, or otherwise to remove page if independent sources not added. Burberry999 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is understandable, however the two arguments above are extremely different. While one is arguing that the page is not relevant, the other is arguing regarding the credibility of the specific page and not the topic itself. Therefore I suggest to clear the page from deletion, and give it a certain time period in which the suggestions can be implemented. If they have not been done so in that given time-frame we may go ahead and delete the page.IBRAHIMNAWAZOVO (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

very much in shock to see that one could say that the topic of SMBR is not relevant. perhaps the user should re-direct their focus on pages regarding other topics or shall perhaps education themselves in topics of such matter. The issue of adding more sources is not an issue and can be resolved. Even if not resolved, it does not warrant one to delete the entire page, and that is devoid of all logic.Arhsquad01 (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect and selective merge to Board of Revenue, Sindh.4meter4 (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this administrative role at the provincial level does not seem inherently notable. And the sources do not suggest it is either. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 12 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. Consensus reached is that this article passes WP:NFO. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per this deletion review, the result has been revised to No consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. My apologies for the mistake. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aame Katha

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 13 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 20:26, 20 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 22:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist. Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFO, "the film has received a major award for excellence." Jayasudha won Filmfare Award for Best Actress – Telugu for the film. Source added in the article. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NFO for the award — DaxServer (talk to me) 15:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFILM, like all subject notability guides are refutable indications that the subject might be notable. In the case of this article, the subject has not evidence of significant coverage in reliable source in the article sources or searches. Therefore, the SNG is subordinated to GNG, which is not met. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we have WP:NFO to determine "other evidence of notability". The first line itself notes A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. The NFO asks to consider other criteria to find evidence of notability. Surely, it doesn't guarantee an article on WP, but it is an indication that there could be sources and one has to search, sometimes might take a while to uncover them. Based on the NFO, I'd keep the article. — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG is not met. WP:NFILM is not met either – including WP:NFO: the film did not receive a major award for excellence – the award mentioned in this discussion was not for the film (and it's excellence), but for best actress. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The award she received was for her acting in this film. I'd assume that her acting is a part of the film making. Do you think otherwise? — DaxServer (talk to me) 09:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't assume anything. When an actress has received a best actress award it is not the case that the film has received a major award for excellence. Keywords: actress =/= film, best actress =/= excellence of film as such. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFO. Disconnecting an award won by an actor for a performance in a particular film from the film itself is a pedantic, obtuse, and obstructionist argument which lacks common sense. Of course an award for a performance within a film counts as an award toward's the films notability as well as to the actor. That's why media around the Academy Awards can state about a film "winner of 10 Academy Awards" including, Best Picture, Best Actor, etc. One can not divorce the performances from within a film from the film itself, as films are essentially made up of captured performances as their primary ingredient. Further, if an actor's performance within a particular film wins a significant award, it's a strong indicator that foreign language references or offline references exist about the film which would meet the standard of GNG. Hence we can presume notability, which is why NFO was written.4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radio & Records and Mediabase number-one singles of the 2000s

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

Unverifiable chart data. All positions are cited to a personal website that backed up the archives and is therefore not an RS. Mediabase does not, as far as I can tell, archive individual charts, meaning that every position here fails WP:V. Mediabase is not listed on WP:GOODCHARTS for this reason. These pages aren't linked from anywhere either, showing an inability to maintain the content.

ETA: The chart positions of Radio & Records dating to 2009 and prior can mostly be verified through back issues here, which is why I did not nominate those. It's solely the ones pertaining to Mediabase that I feel should be deleted.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a catalogue. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The website is the only source where the Mediabase chart positions are at. I know that Mediabase never publishes or archives their charts, but it's the only place I could find. 70Jack90 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@70Jack90: It's not a reliable source though, as it's hosted on a personal website. That's like saying that the Angelfire site I made when I was a teenager is a reliable source because it's the "only place" to find information on obscure shopping malls that were demolished 20 years ago. WP:BADCHARTS exists specifically to thwart usage of charts whose positions cannot be confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST: "a list topic is considered notable...if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." This is not the case here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:59, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gestalt (Mac OS)

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

A part of 1980s Macintosh system software. No apparent notability (WP:N), and underreferenced, so possibly WP:OR. Searches find coverage in technical publications, but nothing that would merit article-level coverage of an obscure system function that does not appear to have been particularly important or influential. It would be undue detail if merged to System 6. Sandstein 20:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 00:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete programming function lacks coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a computer software programming manual. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This software exists, but that's not enough to be notable, and the sourcing is terrible. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:35, 9 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 09:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Bergmair

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

~~Notability of this BLP is largely inherited from MindGeek. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 4 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 01:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These are in-depth [73], [74]. Also Financial times is behind paywall [75] but would seem to be in-depth. The guy is behind Pornhub, one of the biggest adult sites, that is notable. Peter303x (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Peter303x demonstrates, there is easily enough to meet WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peter303x.4meter4 (talk) 23:25, 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. Consensus seems to agree that the subject meets the basic criteria for notability. (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aparajitha Raja

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

BLP of a student leader; not clear whether there is enough in the sources to make her wiki-notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to met GNG. Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: We already have sources from the Hindustani Times, Indian Express, and Business Standard India. There is also an article in the Daily Mail, so I think this passes GNG. There's also an interview in the Deccan Chronicle but that doesn't count. Furius (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is some coverage but this is a student leader and the coverage doesn't reach SIGCOV.--Hippeus (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that she's a student leader is relevant to notability either way? AISF is an organisation with several million members, so only the question of whether there is sufficient coverage seems to be material (and I admit that this is questionable). Furius (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Furius - it seems like she's received significant coverage. I can also find things like: For Aparajitha, lineage alone won’t seal victory, 'Some slogans were juvenile and senseless, but had context', Q&A: 'When politics decides your future, decide what your politics is', JNU Sedition Row Serves Right-Wing Govt’s Agenda: Aparajitha Raja, JNU row accused Umar Khalid, D Raja's daughter were provided hostel rooms against University norms?, ABVP accuses Left-leaning students of JNU violence, Slapped with fresh fines, 14 JNU students defiant, etc... NHCLS (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant keep. The four sources currently in the article provide non-trivial coverage. More detailed biographical material would be ideal, but this is coverage in national newspapers focused on the individual in question, so I think it qualifies. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the coverage she has received in the sources listed above, is more than enough to satisfy WP:BASIC if not WP:GNG. I don't see why we should apply a higher standard here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: It's WP: TOO SOON and fails WP:BASIC with the sources provided. With only mentions or direct quotes, neither the page sources nor the ones earlier in this discussion provide enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Rather, the events/incidents Raja has been involved in are covered in-depth. Daily Mail is a deprecated source by the way. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Vanamonde. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. More discussion needed about whether the articles meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG or is WP:TOOSOON
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 00:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC; this 2010 Hindustan Times/PTI article, D Raja's daughter to contest elections for DUSU president includes biographical and education background; the 2016 Deccan Chronicle interview Q&A: 'When politics decides your future, decide what your politics is' includes WP:SECONDARY context from the interviewer, and this 2016 interview from the Business Standard adds more: Aparajitha Raja is in the eye of a 'patriotic' storm; this 2019 interview with The Quint, JNU Sedition Row Serves Right-Wing Govt’s Agenda: Aparajitha Raja includes some commentary and context, and this 2019 Indian Express article, JNU sedition case: Court to consider chargesheet against Kanhaiya, others on January 19 and this ABP/PTI article JNU sedition case: Court questions Delhi Police for filing chargesheet without procuring requisite sanctions include more than trivial mentions and additionally support her WP:BASIC notability. There has been WP:SUSTAINED coverage from independent and reliable sources and the article can be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per WP:BASIC by Beccaynr. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 05:18, 9 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. No consensus would be a reasonable close here just on the numbers. However, many editors called for delete quoting WP:CRYSTAL without explaining that rationale any further. Others rightly pointed out that CRYSTAL does not forbid articles on future events, only unverifiable ones, and verifiability has not been challenged here. The CRYSTAL rationale, by itself, therefore is in my judgement, not a solid policy based rationale. A further argument put forward was that this fails NLIST because such lists are not found in sources. This claim was comprehensively refuted by ScottyWong with evidence.

A number of participants called for redirect on the basis that the list is duplicated in another article. A couple of participants also said the list should not be at both locations but were easy on which it was. This close does not prevent a future redirect, or removal of the duplicate list from List of tallest buildings. Not duplicating is a good idea, but which way round it should be can be decided by normal editorial discussion and action. It does not need to be resolved here right now. SpinningSpark 07:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of future tallest buildings

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

Topic lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. There are also WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns for an article about buildings that may or may not be constructed. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 01:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to List of planned tallest buildings under construction and limit to those with reliable sources for actual construction underway. BD2412 T 00:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks for the suggestion, I agree with this approach. Maybe simplify the title slightly to List of tallest buildings under construction? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)~~ On second thoughts, I think the redirect suggested by Vladimir.copic is the best option. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong objection to that, but I don't want to be clear that it captures buildings under construction that have not yet reached any particularly great height, but for which the construction plans envision that result. BD2412 T 02:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about a redirect instead to List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/modify per the above suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just rename it. Most of the things listed have their own articles. Dream Focus 17:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of planned tallest buildings under construction as suggested above by BD2412. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BD2412. Kerberous (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are certainly notable tall buildings planned. This is not the forum for a rename, and I rather think editors of the list-article would have agonized about its naming at its Talk page before, or at a WikiProject talk page or elsewhere. I think participants voting for a rename here already might know that the wp:RM process for a contested move is appropriate, would get the appropriate notice and attention and expertise applied. Although, frankly, IMO the name is fine. --Doncram (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming is within the valid outcomes for an AfD. If the article isn't limited to "under construction", I think it becomes open slather for buildings that will never get built. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not "slather". I think renaming here in order to change the scope of the well-constructed list article would be inappropriate, too casually done by drive-by editors; changing the scope can/should be discussed at its Talk page. Buildings not under construction can be planned, documented, covered in reliable sources, too. --Doncram (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename Per BD2412. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this really falls foul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. This information is already covered here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vladamir.copic. Or redirect, as he also suggested. Dronebogus (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a fork article of subsection of List of tallest buildings. nirmal (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vladamir.copic. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep falls within WP:LISTPURP, potentially could be merged back with a redirect to the section, but that would run the risk of bloating the parent article even if done carefully. Scheduled and expected future events have always been allowed under WP:CRYSTAL when verifiable without original research. While individual under-construction buildings are sometimes never finished, the same could be said for future sporting events or other similar topics, the key is that the event be highly likely to occur, once a project of this scale is initiated sunk costs mean that construction is nearly always continued to completion, hence the glut of towers that often finish after an economic downturn has started. Issues with sourcing for individual entries can be dealt with by normal editing, WP:NOTCLEANUP etc. I'm a bit meh on the rename as it's rather clunky, I think when readers are at this title most will already understand it to be a list of planned tallest buildings under construction without having that spelled out explicitly. A better strategy to avoid well-meaning but detrimental drive-by additions would be a more carefully worded lead, and perhaps a hidden note or two. 81.177.27.61 (talk) 16:16, 14 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) 04:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per the comments above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anything beyond currently being under construction (i.e. being approved, being on hold, and so on) is too WP:CRYSTAL-y for my comfort. I have no strong opinions about whether the buildings under construction should be covered at this article (in which case a rename would be called for) or at List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction, but they shouldn't be covered at both (because then we would have a WP:REDUNDANTFORK). So either keep this article while tightening up the scope (and changing the title) and removing that section from the other article, or delete/redirect this article to that section. TompaDompa (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as it is already a part of List of tallest buildings defcon5 (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to a better title like List of tallest buildings under construction, and then delete the list at List of tallest buildings#Buildings under construction and link here instead with a hatnote. I don't think that this list violates WP:CRYSTAL, but the current title is strangely worded and I can see how it would make people think that it would. The list clearly states the inclusion criteria at the top, and seems to define a clear threshold for when a building should appear on the list. All other building "concepts" that never even got close to being constructed are included in a different list. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 14:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vladimir.copic, TompaDompa and defcon5. List of future tallest buildings is already a part of the more comprehensive List of tallest buildings. List of future tallest buildings fails WP:NLIST because sources haven't covered a group of future tallest buildings. Rather, each source on the current page covers one building. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartmusic678: What about these? [76] [77] [78] —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Im not sure the standard notability rule of “if there’s 3+ decent sources it’s notable” applies when the subject is relying on presumed future notability (i.e. predicting that the projects will actually be finished and therefore still notable in the future) and finite past notability (i.e. the fact that the projects were the tallest planned buildings at a certain point in time, in this case 2020). Neither of which is generally a good determinator of notability. Plus the list already exists in its entirety elsewhere on Wikipedia, so what’s the actual purpose of this article? Dronebogus (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Scottywong Thank you. My vote is still delete because the information is already present elsewhere, as Dronebogus and others mentioned. Heartmusic678 (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, you might think that locating the content elsewhere is a better idea, and that's a valid opinion. I don't necessarily agree, but it's a legitimate argument. I was just refuting the notion that "sources haven't covered a group of future tallest buildings", which is apparently not true. If sources are covering these buildings, then they are, by definition, notable. We have articles on solar eclipses that won't happen for 100 years, and we can't be 100% sure that they'll actually happen (i.e. what if aliens come along and blow up the sun), but we're pretty sure. WP:CRYSTAL isn't a license to say "we can't have an article on anything that hasn't happened yet", we just have to be reasonably sure that it will happen. And, if a building is already under construction, I think it's safe to say that we can be reasonably sure that construction will be completed at some point. Of course, there are always exceptions, and we'll never be 100% right. But, considering that the majority of the buildings in this list are bluelinks, I think it's safe to say that notability shouldn't be a major concern here. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:22, 28 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.

^ "R-GT Cup - Season 2021". ewrc-results.com/. Retrieved 16 September 2021.

[1] "R-GT Cup - Season 2021". ewrc-results.com/. Retrieved 16 September 2021.

[1]