Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 30	December 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rusch

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

Not notable, couldn't find any relevant sources. Deprodded without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC PianoDan (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 24 November 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 23:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heavy-enough citations on Google Scholar [1] to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and enough published reviews of his books (now added to the article) to also make a case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per David Eppstein, decent citations (20 papers with > 100 citations) for the field and h-index of 48. --hroest 19:13, 8 December 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 WP:SNOW keep. A proposal to rename the article will follow, as this is not the venue for that. BD2412 T 07:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Iceland

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

RS like the CIA World Factbook state that there are no military forces in Iceland. Lot of related discussion in talk page too. World Factbook states that forces like the ICRU are civilian manned too.

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/iceland/#military-and-security Nathanielcwm (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nathanielcwm (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Nathanielcwm (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Iceland might not have a military in the classic sense, they clearly have a defense system in place that's very nicely detailed here. If the name is a technical misnomer, there ought to be a discussion on what the article ought to be titled rather than a deletion proposal. --Killuminator (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Defence forces of Iceland? Also get rid of the Infobox national military, which is inappropriate and appears to be mistaken about the leadership. The Coast Guard, as far as I can tell, is under the Ministry of Justice, not Foreign Affairs. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the concern seems to be that the article name is a misnomer, it would seem more proper to have a WP:RM discussion on the talk page. Perhaps to something along the lines of Defense of Iceland. -Ljleppan (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to better reflect content. Mztourist (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with users above re: renaming discussion. FiddleheadLady (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article covers what Iceland has in the way of a military force (those Coastguard patrol vessels are armed) and what it doesn't (because it has allies). Topic - consider how it answers the question "does Iceland have a military?" - is notable . GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the main concern seems to be the article's name not the content.Degen Earthfast (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SNOW close. It seems clear the issue is the naming of the article and not the article itself. A move may be warranted depending on the definition of a military, but the content in the article is noteworthy. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:03, 5 December 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 23:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Duffy

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable musician. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FiddleheadLady (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are litteraly no sources I can find.Super (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably should have been speedied under A7 years ago. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both the sources does not qualify as reliable sources.VirenRaval89 (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater ^(talk) 22:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:15, 8 December 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, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imeni Maksima Gorkogo

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

Geostub made by Spokane Ball yt who was blocked for creating similarly poorly-sourced stubs. This one fails WP:GEOLAND which requires populated places to either be legally recognized or have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Please don't just add a GEONAMES entry as a ref; community consensus has consistently been against using such databases to establish legal recognition or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 22:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot seem to find anything on it. I don't think it is a actual city or town but more like a unofficial areas or community. Perhaps if someone can come along and provide some sources for it then I might change my mind but this article adds nothing to Wikipedia. Super (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be some sort of transliteration issue here as Dzhambaskala almost certainly refers to the easily verifable town?/fortress of Jambasqala, but I can't verify it as a result. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this place is the Russian for "named after Maxim Gorky", so I would think that it would be more likely that if it was referred to in English it would simply be as "Maxim Gorky". Of course searching for that gets loads of sources for the writer, which overwhelm any that might exist for this town/village. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a genuine settlement. Per Phil Bridger, given the meaning of the name it would be extremely hard to search for sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think we can assume a notability pass here. The original referencing was largely/entirely falsified, and we haven't turned up anything better, we would need to hurdle the WP:V bar before we can assume automatic notability. No prejudice to recreation in the future if something can actually be found, please ping me if someone turns up sources here. Hog Farm _Talk 14:17, 8 December 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 23:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agbau, Democratic Republic of the Congo

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

Article is sourced only to the GEONAMES database which is insufficient to establish either GNG or legal recognition as required by WP:GEOLAND. "Keep" !voters in the recent AfD failed to demonstrate that the article meets either of these WP:GEOLAND criteria; "GEOnet Names Server is back up, and confirms that this is a populated place." and "Appears to be an actual, legally recognized community, thus meeting GEOLAND" (asserting that the US Geonames database somehow confers legal recognition for a place in the Congo) are misinterpretations of WP:GEOLAND that should have been thrown out, and one of the ~~two~~ "comments" makes the same error. The guideline has never stated that all settlements are notable or that simply demonstrating the existence of a place is sufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not even close to meeting requirements. Super (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Journal Officiel du Zaire affirmed this was a place where a person was born (I object to the characterization of BP's well-said comment into the original AfD), but being a place with a name does not grant notability. There's basically no coverage in the sources other than that, and I can't see how this is a place of any significance. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misread BP's comment, I've struck that part of the statement. –dlthewave ☎ 13:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Avilich (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can’t find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater ^(talk) 11:35, 8 December 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. What S Marshall said. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supriya Shrinate

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

Non notable politician who contested the Lok Sabha election from UP but faced defeat. The sources are almost exclusively routine announcements of her appointment as a spokesperson to INC. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spokespersons are not defacto notable. Doesn't qualify WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria for politicians WP:POLITICIAN. (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — Tnawang (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Vinodtiwari2608 (talk · contribs). [reply]

Keep with a short political career, she might not be a notable politician yet, but she is a notable journalist. She has worked for 18 years as a journalist in the print and electronic media. Being a media person she has been covered in 2014.^[1] In 2001, she began her career with India Today as a Special Correspondent. In 2004, she joined NDTV as an Assistant Editor. In 2008, she joined ET Now as Chief Editor - News. She was named Policy Editor and Executive Editor for ET Now the same year.^[2] These are major news Channels in India and she was holding Chief Editor / Executive editor post which is a very senior post. Because of her being a notable journalist, there has been significant coverage of the subject.^[3]^[4]^[5] In 2019, she resigned from her post as a Senior Anchor in ET Now to contest 2019 Indian general election. She was covered again when she became the spokesperson.^[6]^[7] She has been in news several times in recent years.^[8]^[9]^[10] The article had been lacking info on her Journalism career, I have added it now, so the article should now be kept per WP:HEYMANN.Venkat TL (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Voters everywhere seem willing to give Modi a chance: Supriya Shrinate, ET Now". The Economic Times. Retrieved 10 November 2021.
^ "Supriya Shrinate steps down as Executive Editor, ETNow; joins Congress - Exchange4media". Indian Advertising Media & Marketing News – exchange4media. Retrieved 10 November 2021.
^ "Can journalist-turned-politician Supriya Shrinate anchor UP's Maharajganj Lok Sabha seat?". India Today.
^ "LS Polls: Congress fields journalist Supriya Shrinate from Maharajganj". Deccan Chronicle. 29 March 2019.
^ "एंकरिंग की दुनिया छोड़ चुनाव में उतरने वाली सुप्रिया श्रीनेत का सियासत से रहा है गहरा नाता". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi).
^ "Congress appoints Supriya Shrinate as spokesperson". The Indian Express. Retrieved 10 November 2021.
^ "कांग्रेस ने पूर्व पत्रकार सुप्रिया श्रीनाते को राष्ट्रीय प्रवक्ता बनाया, पिता भी दो बार सांसद रहे".
^ Sharma, Unnati (31 May 2021). "Congress' Supriya Shrinate calls BJP's Sambit Patra 'naali ka keeda', he trends #GaliWaliMadam". ThePrint. Retrieved 10 November 2021.
^ "बीच में मत बोलिये- न्यूज एंकर से बोलीं सुप्रिया श्रीनेत, मिला जवाब- कांग्रेस की रैली नहीं चल रही". Jansatta (in Hindi). Retrieved 10 November 2021.
^ "Punjab: No space for anger in politics, Supriya Shrinate tells Captain Amarinder; ex-CM hits back". PTC News. 23 September 2021. Retrieved 10 November 2021.

Keep: Willing to defer to Venkat TL's justification here. However, these sources and justification for her notability as a journalist need to be clearly articulated and added to the article -- can you do that? Currently the article narrative does read as not very notable. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking stronger consensus about the provided sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just adding more food for thought on this discussion: If we have to evaluate her notability as journalist, we need to check if her work as a journalist was discussed by other media houses. Simply holding editor positions won't grant defacto notability. I was tempted to say that her entry into politics could be WP:1E specifically because she didn't win. But then there is also coverage on her becoming spokesperson. Some may see the two as single event (first part leading to other) and might still consider WP:1E. So truly this is a very tricky situation. We surely need more informed inputs on this discussion. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomadicghumakkad as I understand, editors of notable newspapers are considered notable. She has held the Executive editor of a major news channel of India post for more than a decade. Easily qualifies due to her high post. There are so many Wikipedia articles of news anchors in India and abroad. Venkat TL (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient support for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL, or WP:JOURNALIST, because there does not appear to be much WP:SECONDARY coverage of her career. The article is WP:REFBOMBED with announcements of her appointment as AICC spokesperson in 2019: 1, 2 ANI, 3 PTI, 4 ANI, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 PTI, which are all brief, some with basic biographical information about her career, education and family. Per fn 3 in WP:GNG, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works, so at best, this is one source with limited support for notability due to the lack of depth and secondary context or commentary. There is also the March 2019 annoucement of her political candidacy: 1, 2, 3, 4 ANI, 5, 6, that also does not offer in-depth coverage. There are several sources that report on her work as a spokesperson: The Wire, March 2021, gave an interview about the party's position; The Print, May 2021, went viral on social media after a debate; India TV, July 2021, represents party's position on rising petrol prices; PTC News, September 2021, criticised a politician; Jansatta, October 2021, told a news anchor to not interrupt her during a debate. Reports of her doing her job as a spokesperson in debates, interviews, or quotes to the media also lack secondary context or commentary about her. Her past and current career can be verified, but there does not appear to be much more than a brief CV and some family political history, so it seems WP:TOOSOON for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, it is because of such WP:Systemic biased comparisons [Internet Bias, culture bias etc, (some countries still dont put everything on internet)] we in Wikipedia end up in a ridiculously awkward situation where Category:CNN people (an American channel) has 555 Biographies while India, a country with 5 times the population of USA, has its prime channel Category:India Today people with only 5 Biographies and one is being deleted on this AfD. Every anchor, editor of US TV channels can have article on Wikipedia, but an Indian Executive Editor + news anchor with 18 years in Media cannot have an article on Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think systemic bias is relevant because as a tertiary source, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability and we do not lead, we follow. I think this means that our core policies and guidelines, including the usual reliance on reliable secondary sources, will replicate a systemic bias that excludes marginalized topics from the significant coverage needed to support a standalone article. The Organizations and Companies SNG directly accounts for systemic bias in the multiple sources section, but I have not seen this elsewhere, although fn 2 in WP:GNG states, In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. However, I do not think a source of this quality is available here. In the People SNG, the WP:BASIC criteria states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability, and from my view, I have !voted to delete because the sources, even when combined, do not appear to provide sufficient detail and depth about Shrinate for a comprehensive article. Also, the politicians/political figures and journalists criteria seem designed to exclude routine news reporting as support for notability, and a related challenge is the many sources that appear to be promotional announcements instead of independent reports. But I want to emphasize the WP:TOOSOON part of my !vote, because better sources may exist in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my keep vote above? Please do. Why do you keep harping about the political notability when it is not even in dispute. Blindly applying certain standards on all diverse cultures has led to this ridiculously lopsided (500x) coverage of topics in Third world countries vs US/UK. And you are aggravating the problem. Venkat TL (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I discuss WP:NPOL because most sources focus on her political work, and I think this work may support an article in the future. I also think a systemic lack of significant coverage can contribute to an appearance of systemic bias on Wikipedia, but as applied to this article, it does not seem to justify ignoring the core principles of the notability guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am certain, her political notability will increase in the coming years to pass the threshold for article, but that should not be an excuse to ignore the journalistic notability.

Beccaynr, @George Ho it is not in dispute that certain cultures put every trivial thing on the internet and then those stuff are added on wikipedia citing GNG. The problem begins when folks import same standards to other cultures and start deleting articles on people who would otherwise be considered notable and have an article, but since they are in third world countries, with a difference in the amount of internet coverage, they cannot have an article. The subject if she would have been in US or UK tv channels for 18 years, there would have been no way this article could be deleted, simply because there would be tons of coverage. Now I am not saying our notability criteria are useless, just saying that they need not be blindly applied everywhere as an excuse to reduce the coverage of third world countries. Venkat TL (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No comment on the Indian journalist's notability and the sources. However, I see that the guideline has been cited to keep or delete. If a guideline like WP:N or WP:NBIO doesn't work, why not use policy WP:V#Notability instead? If the sources used are reliable and independent, or if such sources still exist, then she's sufficiently notable. Right? I really hope this article survives the perceived "systemic bias", but... I just don't know. To me, the article looks like a resume in prose. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do think it might be valuable to consider how journalists from other countries are evaluated for notability, just to see if we're actually engaging in systemic bias. Taking the example of CNN, consider bios like Becky Anderson - sources consist of one interview with the subject, an archived profile from a University website, and one article mentioning a video uploaded by the subject that attracted controversy. Applying the standard suggested by Beccaynr this certainly fails notability, yet examples abound from the same list of similar thinly sourced bios that are not up for deletion. Either we apply the same standard, that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" or we admit clearly that different rules of notability are being applied to American and Indian journalists. See, e.g. Paula Hancocks (only source is CNN bio); Asieh Namdar (one news article, one official bio, two random archived links); Shanon Cook (three sources: a bio, a BabyBumps magazine article, and a spotify playlist). I agree that being the editor of a major news channel for over 10 years is in itself notable, but perhaps it might be valuable to demonstrate that notability by indicating what ET now did during her tenure - notable stories covered either by Shrinate or the channel under her management, any editorial controversies that she intervened etc. If the purpose is to demonstrate her credentials in journalism, then that is certainly one reasonable option. -- Naushervan (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of articles exist that probably should not, and it may only be a matter of time before articles without sufficient support for notability are listed for deletion. If there is independent and reliable coverage about Shrinate per WP:JOURNALIST, WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC, or WP:GNG, I would change my !vote, and I have suggested ways to interpret the guidelines that I think could help address concerns about systemic bias. Beccaynr (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, either you did not understand my point, or you are acting naive, since you already voted once. Do you really believe these Indian journalists are not notable or fit for wikipedia? You continue to claim that you will compare coverage of Journalists, of 2 very diverse cultures, and both culture need to pass the higher bar. And if the third world culture doesn't pass? Yikes, too bad, but dont blame Beccaynr, blame the third world culture for not putting everything on the internet. That's exactly how you reach a situation with 555 CNN bios and ~~_5_~~ 4 India Today Bios. Venkat TL (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, that is not what I am saying, and I would appreciate it if you would not direct these types of personalized comments towards me in a discussion that is otherwise focused on the content, the guidelines and the policies. I have agreed with you about the existence of systemic bias, how I believe systemic bias is reflected in Wikipedia due to the core policies and guidelines, and I have suggested specific ways to apply the guidelines to help mitigate the impact of systemic bias, because this tends to be the focus of my work at AfD and editing generally. And for whatever it may be worth, I have previously tried to raise systemic bias at AfD, without success. Beccaynr (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only available close here is "no consensus", and it's been relisted three times already. Just need a sysop to do the paperwork.—S Marshall T/C 01:13, 9 December 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 23:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devoid of Faith

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

Local band, fails WP:BAND: I can't find any significant coverage online, no other indication of notability. See also related AfD Monster X (band). Lennart97 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:16, 8 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monster X (band)

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

Local band, fails WP:BAND: I can't find any significant coverage online, no other indication of notability. See also related AfD Devoid of Faith. Lennart97 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage besides music websites with user-generated content. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:17, 8 December 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 11:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy conservator of forests

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

Fails WP:GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unsourced article about a job title in the Indian Forest Service, but a title that isn't unique and shouldn't redirect there. Reads like a possible copyvio of their job listing. No secondary coverage about the role, I just find wiki mirrors, government directories, and trivial mentions in descriptions of people in the role. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:46, 1 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tokio, Washington

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

I skipped this one initially due to the population claim, but the slightest glance at topos and aerials shows that there is no way that 1,775 people lived in a place where there is a truck stop over by the highway and, yes, a grain elevator by the tracks at the point indicated by GNIS. For comparison, Ritzville, Washington is what a place with that many people actually looks like on the ground. Which is funny, actually, because if you read the start of this heartwarming article, you can see that the byline is "RITZVILLE, Adams County", which by an extraordinary coincidence had, in 1990, a population of 1,725. And furthermore, it turns out that the fire which burned into the 4,500 acre farm and which consumed some 20,000 acres in all "began beside the railroad tracks near Tokio." And that's the only reference to Tokio in the article. I've complained along the way about several examples where the cited sources were significantly misread, but this is on a whole 'nother level of failure. Further searching is clogged to a large degree by the capital of Japan, but what I found was of questionable reliability. It does show up in ghosttowns.com, but what it says about buildings destroyed by the fire doesn't fit all that well with the aerials: there wasn't a cluster of buildings here, only a single structure attached to the oldest grain elevator, the latter still there. There apparently was a school, as there is a picture showing the usual isolated couple of buildings at an undetermined location. Another wiki has an entry repeating the ghosttowns.com info and adding the unsourced claim that it had a peak population of 550, which is not terribly plausible: it's a third the population of Ritzville and would have to have occupied a correspondingly large area. I'm not convinced there's enough to separate this minimal settlement/commercial center/shipping point out from the larger Ritzville area. Everything else in the article is about the truck stop, which is of purely regional interest. Mangoe (talk) 19:56, 1 December 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 December 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination fairly points out that the article when nominated had a completely wrong population claim in it. I've excised that and started to make some improvements. A 2012 book notes Tokio as one of the now withered communities of Adams County. In the early 20th century it did have a rural school. Another example, among thousands, of a formal rural community in the United States that once had an identity but has essentially disappeared. Granted we do have stubs on "unincorporated communities" that never really were communities in anybody's mind, but I think this lays outside those problem cases.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an article that sources can be provided for and with a bit of work would be useful to people. It appears improvements are already being made. Super (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article contains sufficient references and history to justify its existence. Truthanado (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El Payo (record producer)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, all sources are WP:PRIMARY, no chart placings either. Xclusivzik (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:18, 8 December 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. Populated place that seems to lack either legal recognition for WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG coverage. RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Village of Charlie Creek

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

Notability is not established per WP:GEOLAND. It's a subdivision off of a state highway. (Its actual name is "The Villages at Charlie Creek") I PROD this earlier today and the creator removed it based on labels in Wikimapia - the website grabs articles that have {{coord}} data...which is the case here. – The Grid (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's only an "unincorporated community" in the sense that people live there and it is not an incorporated community of any type. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a community center you can see on google maps road view.Super (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources that mention the community. And the Charley Creek Baptist Church is in Wauchula, nothing to do with the "community". - Donald Albury 23:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This church is at 1000 Mockingbird Lane, which is in the community under question. It just happens that the whole area has a Wauchula address.Bill Pollard (talk)
- User:Donald AlburyDoes a listing with the state of Florida that names it a Village with a listed public utility change your opinion?[2] Super (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be only a mobile home park. Truthanado (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the fact it has a community center and Church both named Charlie Creek add anything? There had to be enough organization to build said center and a church.Super (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A community center and a church coupled with a sizable population makes me lean towards a keep. Simply being a majority mobile home doesn't make it any less of a village or community. It also has public utilities listed with the state of Florida as a village.Super (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The village is by name only here - a misnomer to market the land. There are no records within GNIS where some form of categorization is made on being a populated place. Public utilities mean absolutely nothing here when they are required regardless of public or private ownership of land. Easements are used in either case. – The Grid (talk) 22:40, 6 December 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— 15:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Baker (gridiron football)

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources for this WP:BLP, does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON as the United Football League (2009–2012) was not a top-tier professional league and there does not appear to be anything notable about his college career. Contested WP:PROD J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not going to do an in-depth search now, but I found this with a brief search on Newspapers.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning towards a Weak Keep, after my search also turned up this from the Norman Transcript and this from Tulsa World, which is enough to meet GNG in my opinion, though not by much. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also see an article titled "U. Oklahoma: Baker getting an unexpected chance to play" from America's Intelligence Wire here but can't find how to get the text. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per the sources from BeanieFan. Players from the UFL occupy kind of a notability gray area. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would say the Daily Oklahoman is probably SIGCOV, but the Norman and Tulsa articles are essentially interviews (most of the content is quotes) and therefore not independent. If another article like the first turns up that might be more suggestive of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not sure if any of the found sources rise to the level of significant coverage but kudos to BeanieFan11 for greatly improving the page. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I'm finding WP:SIGCOV in the Norman, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City papers. I agree with JoelleJay that (1) this (part 1/part 2) is clearly SIGCOV. The following IMO also qualify as SIGCOV: (2) this, (3) this, (4) this, and (5) this. NewsLibrary.com also turns up the following from Tulsa World (the latter two of which require fee): (6) "Baker's backers", Tulsa World, 12/26/07 (1,459 words); (7) "Baker-mania runs wild", Tulsa World, 11/29/07 (688 words), (8) "Baker in position to play early", Tulsa World, 9/19/03 (642 words).Cbl62 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Oklahoman article (2) is a reprint of the first Daily Oklahoman (1) one. The second D Ok (3) has way too many quotes for me to be comfortable calling it independent (I have the same reservations about (1)). (4) Is ok but also suffers from an abundance of non-independent quotes and very little secondary analysis. (5) has almost zero coverage of Baker and is mostly quotes from him and his coach. (6) Is the same as the third source from BeanieFan; how many words aren't in quotes -- i.e. how much is secondary commentary by an independent reporter? JoelleJay (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eddy, Cbl62 and BeanieFan11. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:PROD, a "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article or file for uncontroversial deletion. [...] PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." All bold in this quote is in the source. Objectively, this nomination does not look uncontroversial at all so the subject should not have been prodded in the first place. Next it was nominated. Per referencing above, it should not be deleted either. Please use the correct procedures to nominate articles, everyone, and please think twice. Articles that do not meet the professional standard, often still meet the WP:GNG. Less nominations means more time for work in the article space. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Elkin

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

This article doesn't show evidence of WP:GNG. The two listed sources consist of a link to a Google search and a single line reference in an old poetry quarterly, neither of which demonstrate notability. I'm also deeply sceptical about the notability/existence of some of the listed awards, ie "The Sylvia Plath Award for Poems about Women (1986)". JonnyDKeen (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't cite any reliable sources and I can't find anything would establish notability. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:20, 8 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of games using SDL

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

No assertion of notability. Why is it significant that a game uses SDL? Without an affirmative answer to this question, this falls under WP:NOTDIR. This is not a defining feature of video games that warrants a list. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, little more to add. This is a not defining trait and rarely commented on by secondary sourcing. Middlewares like this are so common we almost never mention them in prose and they are explicitly excluded from infobox video game. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SDL is ubiquitous, having a list for the literal thousands of games that use it seems unnecessary and is unlikely to be properly sourcable. IceWelder [✉] 21:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the more notable and well-referenced examples could be merged to Simple_DirectMedia_Layer#Video_game_examples_using_SDL, which would probably be more useful if it had less obscure titles. Right now they seem to have been chosen based on whether or not they had copyleft screenshots, not whether or not they're notable or representative. ApLundell (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:20, 8 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of games using Scaleform

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

Unreferenced list with no assertion of notability. Why is it significant that a game uses Scaleform, an extremely common middleware solution? Without an affirmative answer to this question, this falls under WP:NOTDIR. This is not a defining feature of video games that warrants a list. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, little more to add. This is a not defining trait and rarely commented on by secondary sourcing. Middlewares like this are so common we almost never mention them in prose and they are explicitly excluded from infobox video game. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scaleform is ubiquitous, having a list for the hunderes/thousands of games that use it seems unnecessary and is unlikely to be properly sourcable. IceWelder [✉] 21:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They allow people to use a different company's software to show video clips in games. Not a significant part of any of these video games. Dream Focus 05:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater ^(talk) 22:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:21, 8 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with EAX support

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

Unreferenced list with no assertion of notability. Why is it significant that a game has EAX support? Without an affirmative answer to this question, this falls under WP:NOTDIR. This is not a defining feature of video games that warrants a list. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, little more to add. This is a not defining trait and rarely commented on by secondary sourcing. Middlewares like this are so common we almost never mention them in prose and they are explicitly excluded from infobox video game. -- ferret (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EAX support is found in lots of games, yet not a single would talk about this. Unlikely to be properly sourcable. IceWelder [✉] 21:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please keep. This page is a very important resource for retrogamers, as I think it's now the only existing updated list of games with EAX support still existing on the Internet. As for the sources, they are at the references at the bottom. EAX was a very large part of gaming in the 90s. No more games are being made with EAX support, so this is not a list that will grow. Middleware like this is also not "common". It's like 3DFX Glide. It's was a very special technology at its heyday and is part of computing history. To the nominator, have you ever experienced EAX? It was quite something in its day, like Aureal A3D (something I have not seen matched to this day with its audio raytracing). These games sold Soundblaster soundcards, and these soundcards sold these games too. EAX was a defining feature of games such as Diablo II (not the remake) and early games based on the Unreal Engine, such as Unreal and Unreal Tournament - as well as Quake 4, which was one of the first games with EAX 5. EAX was a literal gamechanger and literally changed 90s gaming. -Object404 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the references are at the top of the table, beside the column header "Game", so this is not an unreferenced list. -Object404 (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sympathetic to the preservationist aspect of this topic but Wikipedia is not free webhosting. I'm sure there's a community somewhere that would be a better host for this information that is more targeted at its intended audience. And Deletionpedia exists, of course, as a last resort. As for the references, you're a longtime contributor here. You should know that in-line citations are required for this kind of thing. A handful of citations at the top to cover an entire table with hundreds of entries is onerous to verify and anyone could add a fraudulent entry somewhere in the middle without being noticed for months or years. And that's to say nothing about the reliability of those sources, which seem to be user-submitted (or dead linked). Axem Titanium (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sure there's a community somewhere that would be a better host for this information that is more targeted at its intended audience." -> No, there isn't. The creative forums where a lot of this info used to be hosted are dead and aren't on archive.org. People aren't making copies of this list precisely because it already exists in a handy place, so there wasn't a need to create one. Since you guys seem to be leaning towards deletion, what's the best way to preserve all of this data verbatim? I'd like to back it up before it becomes deleted. Please wait for my backup confirmation before deletion. Thanks. -Object404 (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it'll be preserved on Deletionpedia regardless. It looks like a standard wikitable with no special formatting or templates so the code will just work out of the box on anything that uses MediaWiki software. You can start a wiki for free at Wikia or host your own MediaWiki server. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yesterday I exported it to https://list.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_games_with_EAX_support along with the other lists sure to be deleted soon. If those who use this information want it, they'll find it there. Dream Focus 05:28, 3 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of games using Havok

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

This list does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:SAL and WP:NOTDIR. Havok is one of the most widespread middleware technologies in video games. It would be easier to list games NOT using Havok. This is not a defining feature of video games appropriate as a list topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Video games using Havok shows 352 results. The list doesn't offer any useful information. This isn't a game engine is just physics middleware. It has a port for Unity which a lot of games are made with, so just included with it. Dream Focus 18:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Dream Focus. This is a not defining trait and rarely commented on by secondary sourcing. Middlewares like this are so common we almost never mention them in prose and they are explicitly excluded from infobox video game. -- ferret (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Havok is ubiquitous, having a list for the many games that use it seems unnecessary and is unlikely to be properly sourcable. IceWelder [✉] 21:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDIR, WP:SAL, and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater ^(talk) 22:20, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:21, 8 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of games with hardware-accelerated PhysX support

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

This list does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:SAL and WP:NOTDIR. The length and seemingly narrow scope is deceptive because this list is extremely out of date (and largely unreferenced). PhysX is a standard library within Nvidia GameWorks and, as such, is used in practically every major video game of the past five years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. This is not a defining feature of video games appropriate as a list topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nom more or less says what I would say. There's WP:NOTDIR/WP:DEFINING/WP:INDISCRIMINATE issues with documents such a subject on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe when it was a new thing, game reviewers mentioned it in their game reviews as something notable, I don't know. Seems rather common now though so not a defining characteristic. Dream Focus 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PhysX is ubiquitous, so the list's scope can easily get out of hand, and the entries will barely be sourcable. Consequently, almost none of the entries are currently sourced. IceWelder [✉] 19:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, little more to add. This is a not defining trait and rarely commented on by secondary sourcing, at least not past initial adoption days. Middlewares like this are so common we almost never mention them in prose and they are explicitly excluded from infobox video game. -- ferret (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater ^(talk) 22:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:22, 8 December 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. G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Herbert

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

Non-notable minor performer Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think she's notable enough. In few movies, she played important character. 202.69.15.78 (talk) 16:50, 1 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Award for Best Onscreen Jodi

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

Lacks coverage to even be a WP:NLIST. Refs currently in the page mention it only as part of award lists. Since 2019, both mainstream and entertainment press have stopped mentioning it altogether in award listings as well. Hemanthah (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hemanthah (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemanthah (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As proposed by above Fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Many of these non notable awards are money making business that promote the subjects. Venkat TL (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' Fails WP:NLIST. Not a notable page.Juggyevil (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete this individual award fails the general notability criteria. Regardless the notability of Gold Awards, all other individual awards seem to fail notability. I wouldn't mind if somebody nominated all the awards in a bundled AfD. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:23, 8 December 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 11:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R v Smith (1900)

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

Lacking sources, not likely to ever be expanded beyond what it is currently, and would be best off merged with Superior orders. Mako001 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mako001 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 1 December 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) 05:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Australians

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ugandan Australians and also this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. Geschichte (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. This topic including migration is not subject to significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. There's not enough here for an article - just some stats, and a list of some famous ones, is not an article. If there was more content, it could meet WP:GNG. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 8 December 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 14:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Hill (Northborough, Massachusetts)

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Hill (Iron County, Missouri), and yes I found it via the shared name. This Cedar Hill also seems like an undistinguished hill, failing GEOLAND. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NGEO. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 2 December 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. None of the arguments are strong, but after two relists, the most compelling, detailed argument is that the current sources meet GNG, a position which has not been refuted. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Osher Weiss

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

Fails WP:BIO Yaakovaryeh (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 17 November 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 11:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N rabbi. IZAK (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG; all of the sources listed are both well-trusted and notable Jewish news publications. Yitz (talk) 21:01, 1 December 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 11:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnhild Michelsen

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC, and WP:ANYBIO. To the best of my ability to find films she was in, she does not appear to have lead or otherwise significant roles in multiple notable films. She also does not appear to have received WP:SIGCOV that I could find (and none exist in articles on the various Scandanavian Wikipedias that have her article on it). As a result, I propose that this article be deleted for failing to be notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:HEY, very notable. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has improved a lot since this AfD and coverage seems to pass. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable; I'm honestly not sure how the original nominator missed that on a google search. Yitz (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after some good work by Geschichte.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:26, 8 December 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jafar Najafi

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

References do not pass WP:GNG as far as I can see - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added 2 new citations from reliable Persian news sites including Mehr News. Subject has won several awards so he meets WP:ENT. Chelokabob (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have gone through all sources and did some search of my own, and the article doesn't meet GNG and appears to be promotional Mardetanha (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References seems independent and high-quality (the website of International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam, Tehran Times, etc). --Malekfarugh (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ On 25 Nov 2021, for the second time, Jafar Najafi, won the prize of IDFA (International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam) which is the largest documentary film festival in the world. (Prize category: Best First Feature): SOURCE. --Malekfarugh (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I struck your second "Keep". One per person is enough Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist, need wider input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:35, 1 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oli London

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

This page about an influencer seems to fail the notability criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (people) Quark1005 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't looked in depth at the article or the sources, but at first glance there seems to be significant coverage. They're currently listed as a google topic.[3] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigcov in The Daily Dot, Sky News, and Business Insider. Mlb96 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of coverage. NY Post, TMZ, etc. all covered it.Topjur01 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Notability and WP:NOTGOSSIP The majority of this article is about their obsession with looking Korean, and their non-binary gender preference. If you take the personal details out, there aren't enough actual achievements to warrant even a stub article. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it matter whether someone has had "achievements"? Sigcov is sigcov, whether it's positive, negative, or something in the middle. And I don't think your statement that they received coverage for identifying as non-binary is correct; the reason they received coverage in relation to their gender identity was because they requested that people use the words "korean" and "jimin" as their pronouns, which (understandably) offended a lot of people and led to media coverage. Mlb96 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage I found was all practically the same and looking at the article's edit history I see it was subject to lots of unsourced content about their music career which isn't notable. I vote it gets deleted for now but if someone wants to keep it they can draftify it and add to it until it's ready for mainspace. FanDePopLatino (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They only notability is the fact that their looking Korean and their non-binary gender preference. They was not well-known until coming out of as Korean and non-binary, and their music career is not well-known too. From my opinion, they does not warrant an article. Toadboy123 (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep London has more than half a million followers across social medias. Their music career is not particularly notable, however with a debut album being released on December 1, music videos by Oli have received millions of views. However, the most notable of London is their body transition, which has received a huge amount of publicity and media attention where most news websites released an article about London in the past few months. Oli London is quite a well known figure now, whereas there are much less well-known people with a Wikipedia page. DRYT.Motorsport 13:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because someone has half a million followers in their social media platform does not mean that he/she/they would warrant a notability for a Wikipedia article. Oli is only well-known for their body transition. Their music career was unheard of until the news of their body transition and attempt to look like Jimin. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a celebrity gossip site. Toadboy123 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I’m not trying to say that because Oli has followers they are worthy of a page. London caused a huge amount of media attention and controversy this year, making their name a common site in news articles. This isn’t like making a page about your friend, this person is a notable person. DRYT.Motorsport 10:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Close to a consensus above (discarding policy-deficient !votes), but relisting to see if it can be established more clearly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is WP:SIGCOV such as this in Sky News and this in Insider. Whether someone has had "achievements" or not is irrelevant, the coverage is there. Draftifying an article with 25,000 pageviews over the last month does not improve the encyclopedia and will discourage people from improving it. Evidently this content is of interest to our readers. NemesisAT (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in major publications. JonnyDKeen (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; clearly meets WP:SIGCOV , and while yes, some sources do say similar things, they clearly aren't copying off each other, so I don't think we need to worry about that. I noticed that some others here have brought up the fact that the article is too focused on "personal details," but it this case, it is precisely the personal details that are of interest to many of the cited sources. Oli London's statements of gender and racial identity are of particular public interest when it comes to political and philosophical questions generated by the controversy over their public statements (An example of this is briefly quoted in the footnotes). As such, I personally would not remove or "trim down" that aspect of the article. Yitz (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is hardly any information that can help their article be expanded, as much of is it only regarding the subject's obsession in trying to look like Jimin. Their music career is not that popular and is very poorly received among general audience. Just because a subject has a lot of coverage does not mean it would automatically merit a creation of an article for him/her/they. I don't think Wikipedia should deserve to have an article of someone who is only famous for changing their race by having multiple plastic surgeries and engaging in obsessive/toxic fan behaviour. Toadboy123 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 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 11:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Channeling

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

Unsourced, fails WP:BAND. All I can find in terms of significant coverage is one album review by Punknews.org, which isn't nearly enough. Lennart97 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one song in a Tony Hawk game does not a notable band make. Dronebogus (talk) 13:33, 1 December 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 11:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just Short of Perfect

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

per WP:NF, lacking significant coverage by independent reliable sources, reviews cited in article other than Leisure Byte are non-notable blog reviews and do not contribute to the notability of the film BOVINEBOY2008 09:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 10:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews at Leisure Byte and Common Sense Media (a WP:RS) are included in article. Passes WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 12:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree about Common Sense Media being unreliable. There is also this foreign language review. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if you are saying CSM is reliable or unreliable, but it is listed as a Wikipedia reliable source at [4]. Consensus has ruled it is reliable for film reviews. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I clearly said that I disagree with the nominator that the website is unreliable. I also voted keep. I'm not sure how there is any confusion. SL93 (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with two previous posters. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources currently used are the best available for the film, and they sufficiently satisfy WP:RS. I also like to keep in mind WP:BIAS, and particularly WP:SBEXT, which notes that availability of sources is not uniform across topics and languages, specifically noting foreign-language publications. In addition, I believe there's been a solid good faith effort here to use the sources available. For all the reasons above, I am highly opposed to deleting the page on NF grounds. Kind regards~ PinkElixir (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with the previous posters. – Csurla (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAs per points made above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 8 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darcey Vanderhoef

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

Contested PROD [5]. Fails NACTOR. No noteworthy credits and little to no coverage in RS. KH-1 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't soft delete as a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Direct-to-video movies are hardly wikipedia worthy. Oaktree b (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:19, 8 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Virginia Astronomy Club

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

Non-notable student organization. No significant coverage. It was prodded in 2009 with the reason "orphaned article, lacks 3rd party references demonstrating notability of this organization." The prod was removed the next day with the edit summary of "removing". The article lacks 3rd party references and still shows no notability, but hey, at least the article isn't an orphan anymore. SL93 (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:58, 24 November 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 09:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's some extremely trivial news articles about star gazing meetups they do. That's about it though and none of it is enough to make them notable. Which isn't really surprising since most clubs aren't notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 1 December 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 it is not notable. Appreciate Chubbles' argument, and bias is certainly an issue to be contended with, project wide. However, without sourcing to back it up, there isn't an article to be had. If anyone wants this to work on in Draft to find and add sourcing, feel free to ping me. I don't see that happening with another week's relist/ Star Mississippi 03:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GP Records

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage about the record label and why it is notable Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The label certainly meets WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label, and illustrates quite well why that guideline says what it says. This article is basically a difficult-to-source but easy-to-populate list, a collation of artists with a noteworthy common feature, and one that would probably be trivial to source if it were American rather than Indonesian. That it is so poorly sourced, I am convinced, is more to do with the WP:BIAS of our contributors and their skill sets than anything about the label itself. I'd change my vote if Indonesian contributors told me this was just a promo puff piece; something tells me that won't happen. Chubbles (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there is nothing in WP:MUSIC that specifically relates to record labels. I am presuming that Chubbles is inferring to the comment in the guidelines relating to artists having released two or more albums on an important indie label (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). This does not state that this is the criteria for a record label to be considered notable. The key requirement is whether the record label satisfies the criteria under WP:COMPANY - firstly "no company or organization is considered inherently notable" and secondly "A company is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." The criteria which apply are no different from those under WP:GNG, in that it needs to be demonstrated that there is significant coverage (about the company or record label in this case) in multiple independent secondary sources. The only reference provided doesn't even mention GP Records but rather relates to the acquisition of EMI Recorded Music by the Universal Music Group. The article states the label was formed as a business opportunity resulting from this transaction but provides no proof - clearly original research. Unfortunately a search of GP Records only provides results relating to medical records, however if you add Indonesia to your search apart from the label's website the rest are hits on social media websites (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, Spotify etc) none of which are considered reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from primary sources there is no evidence that the majority of the artists listed on the label's rooster are actually signed to GP Records. Dan arndt (talk) 09:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I guess WP:NMUSIC does indeed define a "more important indie label" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable". Geschichte (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geschichte then if that is the case there needs to be reliable independent secondary sources that prove that. I've searched and can't find any. As it stands it is all original research. Dan arndt (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well have described what it means by a "more important indie label" but only in the context of defining the criteria for notability for musicians and ensembles. It certainly wasn't intended to act as the entire criteria by which labels are evaluated for notability. Since it is a commercial organization, that falls to WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable . I can't find reliable sources through Google search for it. Mommmyy (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article relies entirely on primary sourcing. 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:23, 6 December 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 (withdrawn). Geschichte (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Steel's A Perfect Stranger

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

I found no significant coverage and the article is only sourced to IMDb. SL93 (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Acceptable stub; film was produced by and aired on a national broadcast network based on a popular book. Nate • (chatter) 09:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found some Newspaper.com sources that could be usable. I'm still waiting for my subscription to be approved, so can someone check these out in the meantime? I found one that was definitely usable and added it, if you could check to see if it's a review or if it's coverage about the film's production. ([6], [7], [8], [9]) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reviews found by ReaderofthePack. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Reviews look good. SL93 (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 1 December 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.

Daniel Belton

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mlb96 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Artist doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- coverage is largely non-independent sources and interview-based articles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you for adding the extra sources. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some awards and fellowships I missed in the initial write-up, so please have another look. But honestly, deleting a bio of Daniel Belton claiming he is not notable would be embarrassing. If I have failed to demonstrate his notability then I am happy to hear what can be improved, but I think your assessment is off the mark. He is an Arts Laureate, which is pretty much as good as it gets for recognition of creatives in New Zealand (and by that alone he meets WP:ANYBIO "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". He received a choreographic scholarship of which they award only one annually in the entire country. His work is recognised internationally, and that is supported by his Arts Laureate bio and his New Zealand School of Dance bio, which are independent of him. DrThneed (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 07:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Laureate Award from the Arts Foundation of New Zealand is, as DrThneed says, a well-known and significant award (probably one of the most significant awards for artists in New Zealand). Having had a quick look on my phone these additional sources might also be added (if I've missed them in the article, apologies): [18] [19]. And the National Library lists a number of promising further sources that would be accessible through NZ libraries: [20]. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chocmilk03, have added the first two and will look up the library ones next time I get the chance. DrThneed (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Arts Laureate alone brings this over the line; those people are inherently notable. Schwede 66 09:26, 1 December 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) 05:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Octalux

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

Contested PROD [21]. Appears to fail WP:NBAND, no noteworthy awards, little to no coverage. KH-1 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete textbook WP:GARAGE band (complete with ridiculous XTREME band photo, single-purpose creator account, and MySpace link), all the sources I found appear to be blogs. Dronebogus (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They seem proud to be unsigned, but that's why they haven't gained significant and reliable coverage during their many years of existence. Per WP:NBAND, placing 2nd or 3rd in local battles of the bands does not satisfy the requirement for "major" awards, and they are not prominent representatives of any genre or scene just because they got some gigs. The only halfway informative thing I found is this unreliable interview: [22], and otherwise they have never graduated from their own social media and streaming entries. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant and reliable coverage to establish notability. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:21, 5 December 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) 05:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonlinear rescaling

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

Another mathematics "topic" that is just two common words used together in different contexts. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlike spatial complexity, I think there is a real idea here, but a small, old, and obvious one: sometimes in optimization problems, applying a nonlinear function can transform the problem into something more obviously solvable. A standard example is that certain quadratic optimization problems can be transformed into linear ones by mapping vectors into higher-dimensional spaces using the squared norm or other quadratic combinations of coordinates as the extra dimensions. However, this would need to be an entirely different article, not focusing on Polyak's old wine in new bottles, so WP:TNT still applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a specific idea and passes WP:GNG based on the sources in the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The term definitely predates Polyak, e.g., The effects of higher order correlations sometimes can be removed by nonlinear rescaling of the axes, using Detrended Correspondence Analysis (DCA) or related multivariate methods (Melhlop and Lynch 1986). So, of the three sentences in the stub, one of them is factually wrong. Of the four sources, two are being used misleadingly and one, being an arXiv preprint, is not reliable. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XOReaster. Polyamorph (talk) 12:52, 6 December 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) 05:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sobel

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

Nonnotable weatherman Loew Galitz (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Pahiy (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:23, 5 December 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— 15:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial complexity

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

Not a well-defined term. Fivos Papadimitriou wrote a book of this title last year but that doesn't make it notable. We have some extremely vague descriptions and a list of partial-title-matches from a literature search. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Malformed nomination. Notable subject. The fact that the article sucks ("not a well defined term") is not a reason for deletion. In fact, the term is sufficiently defined for those who can read and comprehend the subject. That someone wrote a bokk does make it notable. The "list of partial-title-matches" is falsehood: it is the list of references. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TNT (changed !vote). I still believe that the subject may be notable, but the article is poor to the degree of uselessness. I will try to do some research. I definitely see the concept is coherently used in areas related to geography, but most sources are behind the paywall. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sad story with Wikipedia is repeating, people ignorant on a scientific subject express opinion on whether that subject is worth having in an encyclopedia or not. If you see the term "spatial complexity" in the references, it was obviously picked up by other scientists, it's not just the original coiner of that term. Also if you see publications, they're in notable scientific journals, where they're peer-reviewed by scientists, not by the average Joe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8AC0:100:2C93:8FBA:D31C:D084 (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my fav quote: Wikipedia editors and administrators do not need a degree in cosmic and particle science or quantum mechanics to apply Wikipedia policies. - user Kudpung
That quoted, the nomination is without merit per wikipedia policies, the nom didnt carry out due diligence, and is oblivious to the fact that AfD is not a cleanup. Loew Galitz (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Loew Galitz: "Spatial" and "complexity" are common words; the fact that they have occasionally appeared together does not prove "spatial complexity" is a notable, coherent concept, and a book written does not imply notability (see WP:GNG; we need significant independent secondary coverage). Given the content of the article now, it looks like it is just a phrase that is used in different ways by different people, which would make it not an appropriate article topic (specific metrics could get their own articles). If you think that's wrong, it would be much more helpful for you to explain the coherent concept that spatial complexity represents, rather than to just criticize the nomination. Danstronger (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- explain the coherent... -- RTFM. "In mathematics, spatial complexity is defined ^[1] as the complexity of a spatial entity". ... "spatial complexity can be measured by two metrics: one based on run-length encoding and another on edit distance". Now, in your turn, please explain what you see incoherent here, and I will be glad to explain, although it is not my freakig business: !voter's ignoance is not an argument at AfD. On the other hand, Eppstein's opinion below is properly argumentative as should be. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Papadimitriou, Fivos (2020). Spatial Complexity: Theory, Mathematical Methods and Applications. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-59670-5.

Delete. This is someone throwing buzzwords together with no depth, backed up by an impressive list of references almost none of which are actually on the subject, to the extent that we can even discern what the subject is. The only real source (the Fivos P. book) has only one preprint citation in Google Scholar, so we are totally lacking the in-depth reliable coverage of his work that would make this pass WP:GNG, even if it were reframed as an article about the book rather than an article about its fuzzy theories. There may be something real to write about measures of complexity of spatial structures, but nothing in this article contributes towards that, so beyond the failure of WP:GNG, WP:TNT also applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look and maybe change the vote. @David Eppstein: FYI, Fivos is a given name; Papadimitriou is a surname. SInce yuo have expertise in computational geometry, I am pretty sure you should have heard this surname. (I admit, on a quiock glance, I misread the name for"Papadimitriou, Christos" and desided that this person must have written something of note. Now, as I said, I am willing to reconsider my judgement. Loew Galitz (talk)
I am aware that Fivos is a given name. I didn't call him Papadimitriou because I didn't want to get him confused with Christos, who is much more famous. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Spatial complexity" can mean a million different things, but they are largely unrelated to each other. This is not a case of one concept used in many fields, but one phrase (note WP:NOTDICT) used in many fields to mean different things, and for different purposes. The meanings discussed in the article and the Papadimitriou book are unrelated to the meanings used in almost all of the references. There is no underlying coherent concept here that is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps a disambiguation page would be appropriate if multiple of the meanings of the phrase were notable, but that does not appear to be the case at this time. Danstronger (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Spatial complexity can be measured in million different ways. Same as distance may be measured in numerous ways, and these often unrelated to each other. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - But when you measure the same distance in different ways, you get the same answer. This is what it means to be measuring the same thing in numerous ways. This would not be the case for "spatial complexity". Please also note the policy on bludgeoning. Danstronger (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - See? You even didnt understand what I said. Please also notice I am not bludgeoning: I even wrote that I am inclined to change my !vote. BTW I strongly recommend to reread what WP:BLUDGEON actually is and don't try to shut people down when you dislike discussion. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for deletion.... Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. ... They always have to have the last word .... While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior. Seems pretty on-the-nose to me. --JBL (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        In other words you prefer to slap a label rather than address valid criticism. Especially impressive is your cherry-picking in the quotation. I had almost believed you. Good no know never tp talk to you. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no position on the substantive questions, I merely observed someone bludgeoning a discussion and then behaving like a dick when they were politely asked to stop, and I thought it might help if an uninvolved editor reinforced the point. You can prove me wrong by not responding to this or any other comment in the AfD; then I'll sure feel stupid. --JBL (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Goodness gracious. You jumped in on December 3 acvcusing me being a dick while I have changed my vote on decemberr 1 already. Who is an obnoxious dick now? Loew Galitz (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm ... not trying to get you to change your vote. Incidentally, while it's nice of you to prove me right like this, maybe next time don't. --JBL (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        And you proved me right as well. YOU jumped into a discussion and started throwing accusations around. There are AfD discussions way longer than this one and people discuss each other's challenged calmly without calling each other dick. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another example of the bag-of-words problem: a couple ordinary words get smushed together to make a technical term, leading to countless false positives and the conflation of separate topics (i.e., WP:SYNTH). For example, the introduction says that spatial complexity is "eventually algorithmic", and the definition in the text (sourced to the 2020 book) insists that it is defined using either run-length encoding or edit distance. The very next reference uses none of these ideas, instead employing ideas from algebraic graph theory like the spectral radius. Ditto the next reference after that: once again, no algorithmic information, run-length encoding, or anything of the sort. It's all WP:REFBOMB-ing unrelated publications that happened to say "hey, this pattern looks complicated". There's no coherent subject here, no care put into the choice of references, and no text worth preserving. And I need to spare a moment for that opening sentence: "spatial complexity is defined as the complexity of a spatial entity" — so, spatial complexity is defined as the spatial complexity. Such spatial, very complex. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "spatial complexity is defined as the complexity of a spatial entity" - nothing wrong with this definition, and no, spatial complexity is not defined as the spatial complexity. Loew Galitz (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "definition" is completely empty. It imparts no information to the reader. The different sources thrown into the page all define "complexity" in different ways, when they bother to give it even a semi-quantitative definition at all. This page offers nothing but an illusion of coherence. XOR'easter (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I already agreed the article sucks. I was going to fix it quickly, but decided it is easier to change my vote :-) By the way there is nothing wrong with apparently "empty" definition, as long as it is subsequently elaborated. Take for example "Computational complexity": "the computational complexity or simply complexity of an algorithm is the amount of resources required to run it." I say it is just as empty as it can be, if taken in isolation. (What resources? electricity? sheets of paper? beer? ... ) Continuing to read the lede will not make you wiser. Some statements are gibberish or even false in general. Loew Galitz (talk) 01:15, 2 December 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 11:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia (2020)

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, which does not add anything valuable to COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia. As a reminder, articles that are inconsistent with WP:NOT may be deleted per WP:DELREASON # 14. JBchrch talk 06:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 06:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 06:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 06:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CONTENTFORK of Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia. Also should delete COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia (2021). While timelines are a legitimate article type on Wikipedia, there's no need for 3 timeline articles on the same subject. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic timeline. It is just a data dump. Knox490 (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 02:10, 1 December 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 11:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Tuvalu relations

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is really not much to these relations except the historical fact that the islands were "discovered" by a Spaniard, this fact is covered in Tuvalu#Early_contacts_with_other_cultures. Even the article states: " bilateral relations both politically and commercially between the two countries are scarce, mainly framed within the framework of EU cooperation" LibStar (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this failed WP:GNG wouldn't it have been discovered sooner? SoyokoAnis - talk 04:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. There are many articles created every day and not every single one is put through a deletion discussion straight away even if there are notability concerns. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 14:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per lack of sources discussing this relationship in any sort of detail. Yilloslime (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real information on the relationship, because there isn't really one.--IdiotSavant (talk) 09:27, 4 December 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 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blinkenlights Archaeological Institute

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage I could find and their website doesn't appear to have been updated in many, many years, so no help there either. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see three references at https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Blinkenlights+Archaeological+Institute%22+-wikipedia&tbs=ar:1 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, not sure why my search didn't turn up those. Looks like the two foreign-language sources are are reporting on the same list of "potential first PCs" and the other source is an interview that describes the "Archeological Institute" as a blog. Still not great IMO. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 03:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the only English language source is nj.com, however, that still isn't a significant coverage either. WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only English language source isn't about the Institute itself, it just refers to the blog in passing. PianoDan (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources are cited. Multi7001 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good catch. It appears to be one hobbyist's web site? Unlikely it will ever be notable. W Nowicki (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ThadeusOfNazereth. Couldn't find anything significant in GScholars as well. WikiLinuz 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can’t find anything that suggests notability Devokewater ^(talk) 22:39, 7 December 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 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Camonte

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

I found no significant coverage for this actor and the article is only sourced to IMDb. Not to be confused with the notable character. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR unless foreign-language sources can be found. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 00:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Tagalog Wikipedia article has a notability tag on it. SL93 (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I can verify that some of his roles exist but I don't see any mentions of notable awards or distinctions.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Voters everywhere seem willing to give Modi a chance: Supriya Shrinate, ET Now". The Economic Times. Retrieved 10 November 2021.

[2] "Supriya Shrinate steps down as Executive Editor, ETNow; joins Congress - Exchange4media". Indian Advertising Media & Marketing News – exchange4media. Retrieved 10 November 2021.

[3] "Can journalist-turned-politician Supriya Shrinate anchor UP's Maharajganj Lok Sabha seat?". India Today.

[4] "LS Polls: Congress fields journalist Supriya Shrinate from Maharajganj". Deccan Chronicle. 29 March 2019.

[5] "एंकरिंग की दुनिया छोड़ चुनाव में उतरने वाली सुप्रिया श्रीनेत का सियासत से रहा है गहरा नाता". Dainik Jagran (in Hindi).

[6] "Congress appoints Supriya Shrinate as spokesperson". The Indian Express. Retrieved 10 November 2021.

[7] "कांग्रेस ने पूर्व पत्रकार सुप्रिया श्रीनाते को राष्ट्रीय प्रवक्ता बनाया, पिता भी दो बार सांसद रहे".

[8] Sharma, Unnati (31 May 2021). "Congress' Supriya Shrinate calls BJP's Sambit Patra 'naali ka keeda', he trends #GaliWaliMadam". ThePrint. Retrieved 10 November 2021.

[9] "बीच में मत बोलिये- न्यूज एंकर से बोलीं सुप्रिया श्रीनेत, मिला जवाब- कांग्रेस की रैली नहीं चल रही". Jansatta (in Hindi). Retrieved 10 November 2021.

[10] "Punjab: No space for anger in politics, Supriya Shrinate tells Captain Amarinder; ex-CM hits back". PTC News. 23 September 2021. Retrieved 10 November 2021.

[:0-11] Papadimitriou, Fivos (2020). Spatial Complexity: Theory, Mathematical Methods and Applications. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-030-59670-5.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]