Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 15	November 17 >

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 delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Democracy Network

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. Lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Some of the cited sources don't mention the organization. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; every source I checked other than ones put out by the organization itself didn't mention it, and I can't find any further coverage, though the generic name makes searching difficult. Rusalkii (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. WP:REFSPAM in the article is trying to connect the organization with the larger voting rights movement in the US, but as Rusalkii said, none of the non primary sources actually mention the organization. The article is hopelessly WP:PROMO and the organization fails WP:ORG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CohnReznick

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

obvious promotional article for non notable firm. The various "awards" are just publicity gimmicks. The listingin Accounnting today is just a directory listing. Fails. NCIRO. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable accounting firm, article is promo/marketing using WP and the sources leave much to be desired. Atsme 💬 📧 02:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all refs are either self-published sources or trivial coverage. Pegnawl (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable firm, promotional article. Alex-h (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional puff piece masquerading as a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am from the UK and I was looking for an article on this company. In my industry, accounting, they are notable. Along side smaller firms like Grant Thornton, BDO and Mazars also they are a member of Nexia a global network, I think. 79.78.90.182 (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Men

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

No indication of notability found to meet WP:NFILM. Htanaungg (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Alex-h (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavani Sre

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

Non-notable actor. Only two roles and started in late 2020. Complete non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability as an actor as there haven't been multiple films or TV shows with significant roles. Fails notability for music as well. Jay (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON as the subject hasn't had enough roles or significant coverage to meet WP:NACTOR. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Barcode

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

Short-lived company that was a 2011 no consensus during its period of operation. Sourcing then was mostly non-independent and definitely not in depth, and never improved before the company ceased operation in 2019. I do not find any evidence it passes WP:ORG Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 20:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping for Prior AfD participants who remain active: @Theroadislong and Andy Dingley: Star Mississippi 20:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 6 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) 20:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, didn't generate enough coverage towards any real notability while it was around. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flavien Darius Pommier

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

I believe the subject fails WP:GNG as there's just not enough significant in depth coverage - out of 8 refs currently presented 2 are barely acceptable as they are from Forbes contributors, 1 (no7) doesn't mention the subject at all, 2 are about selling virtual vine (not about the subject himself), 2 about his partnerships. I have found this, but the source looks questionable to me. Generally there's more info about the vineyard rather than the person. Less Unless (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the author's comment on the talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source assessment does of major press coverage from talk page does not find that any of the provided articles meet WP:GNG. See table below. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Forbes US Full interview	WP:INTERVIEW about self	WP:FORBESCON		✘ No
Telegraph Interview	WP:INTERVIEW about self			✘ No
Cosmopolitan		WP:RSP treats Cosmopolitan on a case by case basis and this author does not appear to have qualifications to judge "best wines"	List article	✘ No
Evening Standard	? Article seems to be WP:PROMO especially with links to sites and prices	WP:RSP treats Evening Standard on a case by case basis and and this author does not appear to have qualifications to judge "best wines"	List Article	✘ No
Times UK			Just appears to be mentioning subject's NFT in relation to other NFTs	✘ No
Forbes US		WP:FORBESCON	Mostly about the vineyard not the subject	✘ No
L'Official		? Unsure about reliability of this French source	Even without knowing French this just appears to be a list article with little to say on the subject	✘ No
Decant		? Unsure about source's reliability	Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep with multiple sources presented to satisfy GNG showing significant, sustained coverage of the individual in non-English language sources. Fenix down (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuruzzaman Nayan

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

Football player and coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances in senior fully-pro league or for national team. Never worked as a head coach for a fully-pro club or NT. Most references just mention his coaching licenses and nothing that meets GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass NFOOTY.--Mvqr (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL. Not too sure about GNG either. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple articles solely about the subject across multiple different outlets is WP:GNG for me. GauchoDude (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person is a former professional footballer and a national team coach. He also has "Significant coverage". He surely passes GNG.Diptadg17 (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, a lot of references in the article but nothing in the discussion here to show where the significant coverage is. Not saying otsnot there but with foreign language sources clear citing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while he fails NFOOTY he passes GNG with cited coverage in major Bangladeshi newspapers such as the Daily Sun here, Bangladesh Pratidin here and The Daily Obsevrer here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made my vote above so I won't double up, but it sounds like it would be helpful for me to spell things out more clearly. On just the The Daily Obsevrer, which Devonian Wombat mentioned above, this article is clear significant coverage with additional major coverage in this, this, and this article. He also has passing mentions here, here, here, here, and here from the one source. Mentions in other English-language sources here, here, here, and here. In non-English sources, this article, this article, and this one too look to be significant coverage about the subject and background with additional coverage here, and here. I can appreciate how difficult non-English searches can be for some, certainly myself included, but this to me very clearly sails by GNG without much effort searching in Bengali sources. GauchoDude (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this and this from above on their own are enough for GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass GNG with sources shared above. NemesisAT (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nom.does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even with all the sources shared above by GauchoDude? NemesisAT (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seem to pass GNG guidelines. MartinWilder (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. I agree with the drafitying effort presented here - it is available at Draft:Mitul Marma 2. Thanks everyone for participting and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mitul Marma

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for national team or fully-pro club. References are routine. BlameRuiner (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TOOSOON. Seems evident he will eventually start for the national team, but until then he fails NFOOTBALL. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - could meet NFOOTBALL in the near future. No point deleting a well-made non-notable article. Has strong chances of making debuts in the next 6-12 months. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - got called up by the senior team recently(played an unofficial friendly against Kyrgyzstan) at 17 and played for the u23 in the afc u23 qualifiers very good chance of him making a senior debut by this year.Red004 (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He played for the national team against Kyrgyzstan. Played in AFC U23 Qualifier. There are many broad, exclusive media reports about the player. And the article is well detailed. Diptadg17 (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- He played for senior NT against Kyrgyzstan U23, as the sources say. AFC U23 Qualifier is not enough either. --BlameRuiner (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I agree with the TOOSOON comments Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - making this a draft is improper, since we can't simply ASSUME that he will get caps with the National Team and drafts cannot be kept indefinitely. However, I support user-fying the page, as there are not the same limitations as the draft space. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL yet, but can keep in drafts for future. MartinWilder (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Wole Ademola Adewole

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

No sign of WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. Having co-authored a few papers and done government consulting does not make someone automatically notable. JBchrch talk 21:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 21:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 21:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. JBchrch talk 21:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete — Promotional article on a non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Clearly promotional. Deb (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nowhere near establishing sufficient notability for an article. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independant significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, definitely doesn't meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet guidelines for notability. MartinWilder (talk) 03:51, 23 November 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Russel Smirity U-15 Gold Cup

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

Invitational youth football tournament in its first year with very little coverage outside of standard match reports. Fails WP:GNG as well as any topical notability guidelines such as WP:SPORTSEVENT. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BFSF U-14 Academy Cup RedPatch (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable tournament, fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this children's sport event even got coverage, the coverage of children's sports is trivial by definition. Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 23 November 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, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 BFSF U-14 Academy Cup

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

Per this discussion at it's parent page. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local youth tournament, and all the coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. GNG requires not just multiple sources, but also independent sources. As noted in the AfD for the tournament series, the information all seems to be coming from the same singular source, so multiple "sports desks" reporting this information does not meet GNG. If this were an international U-15 tournament, I could definitely see the notability, but this is no more notable than any other local youth tournament. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BFSF U-14 Academy Cup NemesisAT (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BFSF U-14 Academy Cup RedPatch (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tournament helding since two season. This youth tournament have got enough media coverage. The references has mentioned its very much reliable sources. So I suggests it should not be delegates. Thanks all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.4.4.113 (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notableMuur (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please don't delete it. This article will have wide media coverage. Although the tournament is youth age tournament. It will be much highlighted by the Bangladesh newspapers. Thanks all my respected brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MD Hydrogen 123 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL, there is no way of knowing that this tournament will have significant coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry, i don't see any WP:SIGCOV (other than same press release reposted on several news site). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My respective administrators before delete this and others three articles think twice the articles of specially BFSF U-14 Academy Cup have got about 10 reliable references. So keep it boss. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.8.4.72 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whether or not the tournament BFSF U-14 Academy Cup itself warrants an article is one issue. It's quite clear, in any case, that there isn't any justifiable case for having an individual season article for each edition of this tournament. Such an article would require evidence that each individual match gets significant coverage. I'm not convinced by any of the keep voters that this is actually the case. There are general press releases relating to the tournament and passing mentions in other places. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this children's sport event even got coverage, the coverage of children's sports is trivial by definition. Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfaction with Life Index

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

Not a notable statistical index. Appears to have been a one-off meta-analysis journal article by a non-notable researcher. Doesn't seem to be tied to more current "happiness by country" studies such as World Happiness Report. The BBC source [1] is an excellent example of bad science journalism; it is also contemporaneous and largely an interview with him. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some indication that it may meet criteria for WP:GNG but more reliable, independent sources are needed. Multi7001 (talk) 04:33, 7 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) 20:46, 9 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) 21:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OnePlus Nord 2 5G

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

no evidence of being independently notable from other phones of the brand DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The page needs additional sourcing, but a quick search indicates that it meets WP:GNG. There's even a bunch of news today about one that exploded in someone's pocket. -- Bob drobbs (talk)

Keep: The topic has good references available and Google search shows significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The page meets general notability WP:GNG -- Oddparents (talk) 08:07, 16 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) 21:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some work, but the subject is notable. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject is clearly notable based on coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grieving Hearts Talk

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

Fails WP:NOTBOOK. Google search does not return any independent sources. Most of the references are from a personal website. Article does state, "It has been featured in many local newspapers and magazines", however, this refers to the accident and not to the book. Johnj1995 (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one local news article, but it didn't really provide significant coverage of the book itself, spending most of the time interviewing a family member about the accident. No other reliable sources could be identified. It thus seems to fail WP:NBOOK; since the author is non-notable there's no apparent redirection target. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sufficient independent sources to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dell. Re-closed after a WP:BADNAC; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 December 24. Sandstein 09:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History of Dell

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

This page has grown increasingly out of date. The majority of the content does not cover beyond 2009 and has been tagged as out of date for almost 4 years. The main Dell article has a more up-to-date and comprehensive history at this point.

After an initial PROD request, WikiProject Computing users noted there remains a small amount of unique content on this page not covered on the Dell page. As such, I nominate that this article have the remaining unique content added to Dell, and then be blanked and redirected. I don't believe this constitutes a full merge, however: it seems to me that the "List of Dell marketing slogans" section could be wholesale copied over and that's about it.Spurious Correlation 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spurious Correlation 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spurious Correlation 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spurious Correlation 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am starting a discussion and not BOLDLY redirecting immediately because of the dePROD. This is a "challeneged" article and seemed to warrant confirmation of consensus, based on this 2018 discussion: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"? Spurious Correlation 19:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a well-justified partial merge to me? Probably ought to have been a merge discussion, really. FWIW, in favour of merging as per given reasons. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dell, however selectively as desired. With direct sub-articles like this, we ought to ensure that the main article is up to par and that there is demand for more details than can be provided there before considering a spinoff sub-article. I'm unsurprised this is out of date, since it's just too niche a topic to get regular attention. For now, the best course of action is to merge and redirect to focus attention on the main article, and perhaps someday if someone wants to do a more thorough history they could recreate this. A small piece of advice for them that the creator of this article apparently did not heed: maybe perhaps consider possibly wikilinking Dell somewhere in it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dell, but I do want to make sure someone has the time to somewhat carefully copy over the relevant information and references. Is someone volunteering to do that? Don't want to lose the info entirely. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose since I nominated, I would be remiss not to offer to do it myself. I'm happy to do so, so long as we have a consensus here. Spurious Correlation 02:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DELL is already a long article. Might it not be better to rename this to something like History of Dell 1984-2009? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is way too WP:PRECISE. If that is your concern, the better alternative would be to move the history section out of Dell and into History of Dell wholesale. I will note that the text (not raw markup) size of Dell is currently 53kb, which is just in the range of consideration for splitting according to WP:SIZERULE. A split-merge -- essentially replacing History of Dell with the text of Dell#History isn't a terrible idea, honestly. Spurious Correlation 22:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to no History of Dell 1984-2009 please :) Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just replacing History of Dell with the text of Dell#History seems like the best option here. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, based on the desire to keep the parent page a reasonable size a Split of Dell#History and merge to History of Dell seems the best option. I'm not sure if I can close this as a speedy keep or not at this point, I'll wait for an admin just in case. Spurious Correlation 14:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of Sound

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

Non notable record company, article created by the owner. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGSIG. The only two blue linked bands to have recorded on the label are blue links because the article creator made them, and are the band he played in and the band he managed, respectively... they don't look notable either. Absolutely no good sources at all – the Link2Wales website cited in all three articles is also run by the article creator, so this is basically all self-sourced. Richard3120 (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of footballers with more goals than caps

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

Following on from a discussion at WT:FOOTY, this is possibly a case of WP:NOTSTATS; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics (even if they might be of interest to some football fans). Secondly, I'm not sure it meets WP:LISTN as I don't see any evidence that these particular players have been discussed as a group significantly in WP:RS. In fact, I can't see any evidence that anyone other than the article creator themselves has grouped this exact bunch of people together for this very reason. For example, I can't find any example of Gottfried Fuchs and Amaiur Sarriegi being discussed together by the same source so the link between all of these people is a fairly tenuous one as far as Wikipedia's definition of notability is concerned. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this is overkill are WP:OR. Govvy (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not worthy of an article. Giant Snowman 18:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOSTATS and WP:OR. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete There are articles with lists of goals for players, list of players who have scored more than 500 goals, list lists of hat-tricks, lists of goals scored in each championship, and of the best batting average (baseball and cricket) or List of chess players by peak FIDE rating (by decade) wihout any source, but there is no such thing as a best scoring average.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Txikon (talk • contribs)
- Recently many players are achieving very high figures of international matches played and goals scored with their respective teams, which are assuming absolute records, but not relative ones.It must be appreciated that international teams as prolific as Sweden (1073), Argentina (1048), England (1028) and Brazil (1018) for many years barely played 5 or 6 games per season (England 21 matches in the last 12 months). And many great players and huge scorers (such as Gerd Müller) are overshadowed by this circumstance. Txikon (talk • contribs)
- Things like batting average in baseball or cricket are the most key statistics in those sports and there will be hundreds of sources discussing/comparing players' batting averages. I doubt there are any sources discussing/comparing footballers with more than one goal per cap. But maybe I'm wrong and there are? If there are, maybe this article could survive. Are you aware of any such sources.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question What should I take away or add to be an article worthy of approval? Txikon (talk • contribs)
- @Txikon: - you are welcome to add further comments to the discussion but please do not !vote (type "not delete") more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is one FIFA reference on List of men's footballers with 50 or more international goals called 'More goals than caps' ([2]), indicating that the topic has at least been discussed before. But I can't see the article - even the archive url bounces back to the current main page. I think there is a way to bypass the Javascript and block the redirect, instructions on Wikipedia are here, but I haven't really got sufficient knowledge to work out what should go where and in what order to make it work. But if someone does have the skills, might be useful - even if only to go on that existing article as this one looks like it's about to be exterminated. Crowsus (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crowsus: this link works. Intriguingly, it only lists 15 players, compared to the c. 200 in the article being discussed....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ChrisTheDude: thanks but that doesn't work for me, still forces me back before it loads. Must be my settings. If you can be arsed could you paste me the text to my talk page? Feel free to ignore. Crowsus (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should we also have a "List of footballers with more caps than goals"? While interesting, this is hardly noteworthy, reeks of WP:LISTCRUFT, and clearly goes against WP:NOTSTATS. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA. All of the examples given in the "not delete" comment refer to lists that are covered in reliable sources such as newspapers, whereas this isn't- it's just information pulled together from stats sites. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Until 1993, many reliable sources such as newspapers defended that the goal scored by Bryan Robson in England-France (WC 1982) was the fastest goal in World Cup history, and even today it continues to appear from time to time in the written press, as in it was actually that of Václav Mašek in 1962 (TCH 1-3 MEX) until 2002 Txikon (talk • contribs)
  - How's that relevant to this list? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Taking the newspapers as reliable sources when their sources are sometimes taken without contrast is not very serious. Here are the sources from the federations that are available. Some, such as the Swedish Federation, there is only one listing (.txt) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txikon (talk • contribs)
Delete as trivia. Clog Wolf _Howl 12:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and NOSTATS. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 17 November 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.

***Conclusion: It is always a pleasure to see that among the arguments in favor of eliminating the article was that it "occupied a lot of paper", or that it did not appear in the newspapers, or arguments so solid and of great objectivity: how to say that 'it is not relevant for me' or that it only relied on pages of statistics, more or less like the population data or the municipalities of a department, province or region, that relies on data from statistical institutes rarely all appear together in the same newspaper article. I suppose that articles such as Scotlan footballers that had played 2 or 3 caps (where more than 320 names appear) is so relevant that it deserves an article of its own. I also appreciate that you have been able to respond in the highest degree of Paul Graham's pyramid to the question that I left it (What should I take away or add to be an article worthy of approval?)

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Sheikh Russel Smrity U-15 Gold Cup

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

This youth tournament doesn't appear to have enough significant coverage to warrant an individual season article. I have no objection to Sheikh Russel Smirity U-15 Gold Cup staying but this 2021–22 article should be deleted for failing WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:V. All of the sources cited are just the exact same press releases posted across different websites, none of which verify any of the article's information. The goalscorers and penalty shoot-out results are pure WP:OR and the cited match report has no depth at all. This tournament existed. It took place. There is, however, no evidence of actual notability for this children's tournament. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this tournament is not at all notable. Standard match coverage does not come close to passing muster for GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tournament is the first season. This youth tournament have got enough media coverage. The references has mentioned its very much reliable sources. So I suggests it should not be delegates. Thanks all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.4.4.113 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment doesn't address the concerns raised. Where are the sources that detail the match results, specific goalscorers and penalty shoot-out stats that are in the article? This would be fine if we were just doing a main Sheikh Russel Smirity U-15 Gold Cup article but because we are having a separate article for the individual results then it stands to reason that we will need a reliable source for those results per WP:V if nothing else. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. We are NOT making seasona articles for a U15 football tournament in Bangladesh, that would be ridiculous. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the U14 one. Non-notable tournament and per above. RedPatch (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if this children's sport event got coverage, the coverage of children's sports is trivial by definition. Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 23 November 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. Nomination was withdrawn along with a rough general consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Shepherd Rams football team

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

This page highlights a season for a division II football team that didn't make it to their National Championship Game. in 2015, this football team made it to the D2 National Championship and there's no page for that. I see that this article does have references, but all from the same publication, a small newspaper in Martinsburg, WV, and wasn't widely reported as noteworthy. I graduated from Shepherd, and follow the team, but I don't see this article as noteworthy enough for standalone. I personally feel it could be redirected to Shepherd Rams. Very few other Division II programs who make the playoffs have their own article for a particular season. This is my first AfD so please help me with guidance if I'm wrong in this area Spf121188 (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for 2016 Shepherd Rams football team[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 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have not had an opportunity yet to search for sources beyond Martinsburg, but note that this team won its conference championship and made it the semifinals (i.e., the final four) of the Division II playoffs, so it's not a run-of-the-mill Division II season. This should rise or fall on whether there is WP:SIGCOV in multiple, independent, and reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NSEASONS: "A season including a post-season appearance (or, if there is no post-season competition, a high final ranking) in the top collegiate level is often notable." Unsure of other seasons for this team (there is no template I saw), and I realize that my quote specifies "top collegiate level" but I still think this is a notable season. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Shepherd Rams football team appears to be the only other season so far. That one is even more lacking in terms of GNG level sourcing in its current state. Cbl62 (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My main reason for this AdF is the following from WP:NSEASONS; "A national championship season at a lower collegiate level might be notable." I concede that it's certainly a notable season in that yes, Shepherd won their division in 2016, but the guidance says that an article "might" be notable if they make it to a National Championship game, (Which Shepherd did in 2015, for which there is no article) and did not make it there in 2016. I won't vote on this given that I did graduate from the school, but wanted to note that. That being said, if this article stands, I certainly won't be upset about it. Spf121188 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've found game coverage from three different newspapers (which can be found in the article), meeting the notability criteria in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BeanieFan11, This is just a question for my understanding of the process, but does it matter if all of these references are from West Virginia publications? I'm not questioning your inclusion by any means as it's certainly helpful, I just want to make sure for future reference whether this is still notable given that. Thanks! Spf121188 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I don't think the coverage being local should matter. However, I've seen other editors who are against this (saying coverage should be more national) and ones who support this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to underscore what BeanieFan11 has said. You will find that across Wikipedia and in other subjects (particularly with events at deletion), many editors dismiss local coverage since Wikipedia avoids primary sources where possible. But there's actually nothing in WP:SIGCOV that specifies something cannot be local (as long as it is independent). Different areas require different approaches to reliable sources and notability, and in the area of sports, particularly college athletics, reliable sources will look quite different than the typical sources editors are used to. Kudos for learning as you go. That's how we all get started here. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etzedek is generally correct about local coverage. Several proposals to enact a formal restriction on use of local coverage to satisfy GNG have failed. My own view is that there needs to be more nuance, i.e., SIGCOV in all reliable independent sources should be considered, but common sense dictates IMO that SIGCOV in major metropolitan dailies should be given more weight in a GNG analysis than hyper-local coverage in a small-town newspaper. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than enough coverage to surpass WP:GNG. WP:NSEASONS is inlcusive and not exclusive --Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11's sourcing. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note I would like to withdraw this page, given that I nominated it, and clearly jumped the gun on it. Spf121188 (talk) 13:28, 24 November 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. Hog Farm _Talk 20:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Crud

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

Fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reference I am struggling to cite if I could please have assistance with this to help make this article credible. I have noticed that Neil Crud is among a vast amount of wikipedia pages. projects of his own and projects of others. If others were happy to add/edit I think this article could remain on Wikipedia. ThanksFlowerMoon593 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the existing sources confer any notability whatsoever.

[3] just a listing.
[4] YouTube links are not reliable sources.
[5] passing mention and unreliable source.
[6] primary source.
[7] passing mention
[8] primary source.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reason why "Neil Crud is among a vast amount of wikipedia pages" is because User:Neil Crud added himself! Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ref user is trying to add doesn't prove notability either. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong Sorry, Im afraid your wrong there. Neil Crud has not added himself to the wikipedia pages, unless you can show me otherwise. The same goes for another musician...Spike T. Smith, who I know has been the drummmer for many huge bands all over the world, (Mosrrisey for example) and is named across so many wikipedia pages and yet doesnt have one of his own?? doesnt make sense. I find it impossible how anyone has a wikipedia page. FlowerMoon593 (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neil Crud added articles about bands on his own record label see Sons of Selina and Secrets of Sound and also added self promotional content to Adam Walton for example. Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as per the source evaluation above. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could Neil Crud be tagged article for improvement please? as there will be notable references to be added shortly.FlowerMoon593 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjana Kumari

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. References to till date do not satisfy notability of the subject. DMySon (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can add some good reception of her published work. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several major sources that refer to her as a prominent activist. She seems very well-known for her work in women's rights over the last 40 years:

AP article calling her "Ranjana Kumari, one of India’s most prominent women’s activists and director of the New Delhi-based Center for Social Research"

Washington Post citations from 2013 and 2014[9] including one calling her a "prominent" women's rights acvitist.[10]

Quotes in the New York Times: [11][12]

Interview with The Asia Foundation in 2013: [13]

Interview with the ABC in 2017: [14]

A press release about her being named one of the most influential people in gender policy in 2019 names some of her achievements and posts, and puts her in the same league as Ruth Bader Ginsburg: [15]

Analysis of some of her academic work [16].
This chapter also looks like a good idea of her work.Citing (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:GNG thanks to the sources listed by Citing. Venkat TL (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - via the Wikipedia Library, I found reception of her work that includes: Ursula Sharma, "Reviewed Works: Brides are not for Burning: Dowry Victims in India by Ranjana Kumari; Women-headed Households in Rural India by Ranjana Kumari; Widows, Abandoned and Destitute Women in India by Pramila Dandavate, Ranjana Kumari, Jamila Verghese", Sociology Vol. 24, No. 1 (February 1990) (JSTOR); Anantha Giri, "Reviewed Works: Women-Headed Households in Rural India by Ranjana Kumari; Growing up in Rural India: Problems and Needs of Adolescent Girls by Ranjana Kumari", Sociological Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 1/2 (March-September 1991) (JSTOR); Maitrayee Chaudhuri, "Reviewed Work: Brides are not for Burning: Dowry Victims in India by Ranjana Kumari", Sociological Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 1/2 (March-September 1990) (JSTOR); Eddie J. Girdner, "Reviewed Work: Growing Up in Rural India: Problems and Needs of Adolescent Girls. by Ranjana Kumari, Renuka Singh, Anju Dubey", Pacific Affairs, Vol. 64, No. 2 (Summer, 1991) (JSTOR); as well as an in-depth profile (and some interview) in "True grit", India Today, 3/21/2011 (Gale), a 2013 ANI report focused on her reaction, "Mumbai gangrape: Ranjana Kumari calls for instilling fear of law" (Gale), a 2017 interview with her as an expert titled "Interview: Five years after Nirbhaya, have things changed?" in Governance Now (Gale), a 2018 interview with her as an expert in Indian Currents (Gale). I think the sources identified in this discussion help establish her WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability as an academician and activist. Beccaynr (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the sources establish notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zebedee (company)

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

Advertisement of a fintech startup unable to satisfy WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage seems to be entirely in PR-like, non-RS sources with names that are all linked to Crypto. The two NASDAQ articles I found in my before seemed to be WP:MILL coverage seemingly based on press releases. WP:PROMO. FOARP (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self-sourced promotional article about a cryptocurrency company. Not notable at all. Anton.bersh (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we ignore the crypto press per WP:NCRYPTO, including Nasdaq (which is a reprint of an article published in Bitcoin Magazine), all we're left with is two links to the same VentureBeat article (the independence of which is debatable). This falls well short of WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Noting your concerns, the article has been edited to comply with notability (WP:NCORP, WP:GNG). Removed and added citations with sources to comply with WP:NCRYPTO. Also edited the article to focus on notability to keep in guideline with WP:MILL and not just be a WP:PROMO. I believe it is significant enought to warrant its own article. Darealkekec (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, advertising content. Brayan ocaner (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apart from VentureBeat, the sources used appear unreliable, and just VentureBeat is not sufficient for an article. Additionally, the wording is overly promotional. IceWelder [✉] 08:44, 23 November 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. Due diligence shows that this subject does not meet our general notability guidelines. If the subject does someday, then we welcome a draft of the article to be submitted. Thanks for assuming good faith on this decision. Missvain (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Larson Angok

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

No indication of notability to meet WP:NSINGER. A quick Google search found no SIGCOV to pass GNG, either. Htanaungg (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that this article cannot be deleted, because it is correctly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C0204 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It most certainly is not correctly cited. Geschichte (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 9 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) 15:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mads Hoe

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

As much as I like Mads Hoe, he has not received significant coverage given his obscurity, not just within motorsport, but even within F4 series. The coverage he has received has come from highly specialised sources which I do not believe can be used to establish notability (Formula Scout being the largest contributor to his coverage). Since he is apparently retiring from amateur motorsport to focus on his career in computer science, he is highly unlikely to attract the future attention that would be needed to warrant an article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is that really his name? --2A01:36D:1200:42DA:4199:741C:4B54:EBA5 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is Danish. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to have a bit of interest on forums and such due to his funny name, but there is no substantial coverage of him in reliable sources to establish notability. A7V2 (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find significant coverage outside of self-published blog posts. Formula Four drivers generally shouldn't have Wikipedia articles unless they've done something else to establish their notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and also possibly salt until notability can be established. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of vice presidents of the Philippines by date of death

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

This list is a indiscriminate collection (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) of trivia, and can be seen as WP:Listcruft. Mostly seems like original research, fails WP:LISTN, verifiability. No sources have been included which directly helps to establish the fact that "List of vice presidents of the Philippines by date of death" is a topic of scholarly interest, and has negligible mention in any reliable sources. In short, the topic is not notable, and thus should be deleted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of vice presidents of the Philippines. The best place to list the dates of death would be as a column in the table at List of vice presidents of the Philippines. If the supporters of this article don't care to include it there, I would support deletion as a second choice. (Other information here, like cause of death and place of burial, should appear in the individual vice presidents' articles but doesn't need to be included in tabular form.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Well, here is the deal. List of vice presidents of the Philippines is a featured list, currently a candidate for removal as a featured list. It was completely un-cited, and had a lot of trivial content which cross-categories "age", "oldest-living", "number of living" vice presidents, which I today boldly removed. Many lists of similar type have been deleted. See this AfD, or this AfD. This is similar type of list, which too is un-encyclopedic. I think a merge wouldn't be much helpful. Your thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ping Metropolitan90 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no further comment now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Danstronger (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another one of these unencyclopedic “list of major political figure X by boring longevity characteristic Y” listcruft things. Delete per precedent and also WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:CONTENTFORK etc. Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and no need for merging). This is a prime example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All good information is in the well-formated cleaned-up version of List of vice presidents of the Philippines, including the year of death for those eight who already have passed away. –Austronesier (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list that is redundant to List of vice presidents of the Philippines. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any group of people can theoretically be listed by any number of parameters. However, most of those combinations of groups and parameters constitute WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. In order for such a list to make for a valid stand-alone article, there needs to be a good reason why that particular group should be listed by that particular parameter. Otherwise, WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that there is a good reason to list this group by this parameter. What's more, all the important information is already at List of vice presidents of the Philippines as noted above, and this title would not make for a useful redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NOTDIR and NOTSTATS. Avilich (talk) 12:46, 22 November 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) 16:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ingressive For Good

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

Promotional article created by a paid agent for a non-notable organization. All available sources appear to be press releases, not journalism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking reliable sources not press releases. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL-REASON § 4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:49, 24 November 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. Assuming good faith on the WP:HEY work that took place to establish WP:GNG . There are many obscure subjects on Wikipedia, but, in academia and other realms, it's not always obscure when the correct sourcing is applied. Thank you for assuming good faith. Happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Al Hasan Al Balnubi

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

This is an obscure person, hardly known. The article says he was only discovered in recent decades. No significant coverage. Pikavoom (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found sources which I will add to the article but probably won’t have time to do today (Arabic is fiddly). Can I ask for a relist please if this times out? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve now tidied the text up, and added four references, including journals, to what was there before. Mccapra (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the added references establish notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weston-super-Mare and District Football League

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

See discussions for similar leagues like Mid-Somerset Football League and Guildford and Woking Alliance League, all of which ended in a clear delete consensus.

Google News, with the shortened name, does come up with some passing mentions in relation to a homophobic incident but this does not contain any in-depth coverage of the league itself. No hits for the full name. No hits in Google Books under either the short or long name. Searches in British newspapers such as this and this bring back trivial and hyper-local coverage. Clear consensus from previous discussions that routine and brief summaries of AGMs, match result listings and fixture listings in local papers do not amount to a WP:GNG pass. If it's fighting for space on the page against a middle school fête then it probably isn't notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and for the same reasons those other articles were deleted. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:12, 17 November 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. Convinced by the cases presented by nominator User:Santas99 and User:Avilich.

Please respect this decision and assume good faith.

If anything is needed from the deleted article, let me know and I'm happy to provide it to you. If you have a problem with this decision, please take your concerns to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Herzegovina

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

Forked dab page based on non-existent term, obviously editor generated by combing a proper adjective Turkish with a name Herzegovina (highly unlikely to be used as a search query term). Dab page Herzegovina exists and contains both entries included here. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add the following: apart from the fact that the term is completely unknown (unheard of), it would also be absolutely inaccurate, because at the time of the existence of the sandjak and eyalet (the two included dab entries), the Turks as we know them did not even exist as a political group on the territory of Turkey, and therefore could not be on, or claim a territory that is more than 500 miles away from the nearest border of today's Turkish nation. Furthermore, the term is also offensive in the nationalistic sense, since the territory was not governed by any Turks, but by local Slavic Bosnian or Herzegovinian Muslims, a nation we know today as Bosniaks, who are often referred this way by Serbian and Croatian nationalist even to this day. --౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If anything, it should be called "Ottoman Herzegovina". It may be a valid disambig page, as there are separate instances of Ottoman states in Herzegovina. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The title is false terminology and the page is unnecessary for disambiguation purposes. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ottoman Herzegovina. I see no problem with this as a disambiguation page. Not offensive in any way, as it was part of the Ottoman Empire. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 09:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: being part of Bosnian vilayet, it certainly was part of Ottoman Empire, which certainly is not offensive, however, it was also part of medieval Bosnia, Ottoman Bosnia, Austria-Hungary (as Bosnia-Herzegovina), Yugoslavia (all iterations), modern day Bosnia and Herzegovina, so having two entries in Ottoman Herzegovina, and at the same time just few more in Herzegovina (disambiguation) is maybe unnecessary if not confusing - following this pattern we could break existing Herzegovina dab into few more containing one, two or three entries. I can't see a sufficiently strong reason, but maybe could anticipate some confusion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Herzegovina (disambiguation) (leaving redirect). The purpose of disambiguatuion pages is to aid navigation. This one fails to help, just complicating the situation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ottoman Herzegovina per Necrothesp. "Turkish" is incorrect but "Ottoman" is fine. No opinion on a redirect to Herzegovina (disambiguation); nothing would need to be merged. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Necrosp. A perfectly defensible redirect with the new title. FOARP (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "perfectly defensible" would be perfectly good argument if it has attached word or two of substance in defense with it - the term is never mentioned in academic research/study of the region, at least that I know of or that I was able to find in historians who studied the region's history, while Herzegovina dab page is probably only place anyone would think they should go for links. It's just complicating things and makes it unnecessarily confusing.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the current title nor the proposed new one are similar enough to existing pages that a standalone dab would be necessary or useful. The subdivisions are already mentioned in the Herzegovina dab, so it's pointless to have a separate page or even discuss this. Avilich (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even, in case an alternative must be found, delete and salt. Since the title is hopelessly incorrect, a redirect cannot be justified. gidonb (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per No Great Shaker --Mhare (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murder Drones

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

Fails WP:GNG, perhaps simply WP:TOOSOON, perhaps it will just fail again. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inadequately sourced, and does not satisfy general notability. This was moved back from article space to draft space and then moved from draft space to article space once, which is why nominator did not draftify again. Originator is being stubborn. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Series of articles written by same group of editors all promoting Glitch Productions. Does not satisfy general notability. Equine-man (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not seeing WP:N being met. [17] is all I'm finding... Hobit (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only finding the Gizmodo, which is not really enough. Artw (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, seems WP:TOOSOON at best. That said, Gizmodo is usually considered reliable, so one more good piece of coverage and this could pass. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but maybe we can bring it back after the series is completely finished.--24.44.76.88 (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie Jonsson

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

No claim to notability made in the article and the sources are way below what is required to pass WP:GNG. Nothing found on Jonsson in Google News, Google Books or in a Swedish source search. All I can find is a Playmaker Stats page with no appearances listed and a Eurosport page also with limited info other than the fact that she was on the books of Hammarby at some point. Even if she did play a game for Hammarby or Djurgarden it wouldn't be an automatic WP:NFOOTBALL pass. No one of this name listed at the Swedish Football Federation website so, unless she was more commonly known under a different name, I'm not seeing a notability pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fixed the broken link by using a link from the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20180130091241/https://www.svenskfotboll.se/damallsvenskan/person/?playerid=5313&instant=1 Perhaps that page will be enough. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any caps listed there, which might explain why her profile is no longer available. In my view, a GNG pass would still be required. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:12, 17 November 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. Headcount-wise there are about the same amount of keep and delete !votes with some marked as "keep" (I see that the nominator eventually changed their stance to (weak) keep but a number of other delete !votes that were posted later and/or aren't dependent on the nomination indicate that we shouldn't just speedy keep here). Most of the arguments revolve around WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and whether the sources provided here/roles satisfy their requirements, but there are some concerns about promotionalism/COI too. It seems like there are arguments on both sides of each side and no argument is clearly superior to the other. I note that the discussion was full of offtopic commentary, sockpuppetry and that some participants were sufficiently irritated by one participant that they struck out their !votes. TL;DR I don't see a clear consensus either in favour of keeping or deleting the article in this discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Hogan

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

Does not appear to have had any really major roles; a lot of minor ones--mostly as figures in minor documentaries-- doesn't make for a notable actor. I don't see that any of the references discusses him in a substantial way--they're reviews of the minor films which, naturally mention him . DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi. You have already met me in person here in NYC, so you know I can't be him in an Asian skin. So the "closely connected" accusation is FALSE to begin with. Happy to meet you again per Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC - Wikipedia. I submit to you that maybe he wasn't written extensively like other Irish actors such as Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Pierce Brosnan, etc. Maybe he was shy or hasn't attracted the attention. I don't know because I don't know the guy. But his long list of works speak to his Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Wikipedia regarding the two requirement laid down. This has been argued extensively on the talk page and on my talk page if not else where. There are sock puppets who have intentionally made disruptive editing that have been caught and blocked. Respectfully, I hope we could dedicate our time and energy on something more meaningful instead of this. Plus, correction on facts. He was never in any documentary film. Thanks for your time and consideration. Supermann (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor with minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR as well general notable guidelines. Supermann did Hogan has played any lead role? If yes, please specify which one as I failed to find any significant role at the moment. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's right there in the article/filmography. Two film roles: Hogan played Sky Marshall Omar Anoke in science-fiction film Starship Troopers 3: Marauder...He played the lead role of Adam Smith in Iraq war drama Kingdom of Dust: The Beheading of Adam Smith. And then three lead roles in theaters: Mad as Hell (2018), Possible Worlds (2002), 1999 (Fast Food). You are not even reading the guidelines correctly. As I had said before, if you have difficulties accessing the world class libraries electronically, I am happy to upload the printout so that everybody can verify the theater roles are lead roles. But more importantly, you should just watch the movies that are widely accessible. I see you can speak Hindi. Have you seen his performance in Sardar Udham? I am not saying that is a lead role, but once you compare the aforementioned two with his role in Sardar, you can tell what a lead role is. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making claims do not verify his roles. It needs reliable sources to support the claims. As I can see, the subject has played zero lead roles. The guidelines are very simple.

WP:NACTOR: 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or

2 Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I don't know whether you can't count or I can't. Multiple is defined by many dictionary out there as "consisting of, including, or involving more than 1." For example, Multiple | Definition of Multiple by Merriam-Webster. Here he has 5. What I do know is you and I have ZERO. His long list of filmography shows he is prolific. You can say it's not unique/innovative, but the guideline is simple. It's either or. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which source(s) indicate his lead roles? Please provide here so that we can better understand your sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get bogged down in lead role, let's recall the guideline doesn't even use the term. The guideline instead uses "significant roles." So I am not gonna go down this rabbit hole, when the answers you seek are on the filmography by ctrl+f finding "lead role" - an imprecise term used by others. You at least should see those two aforementioned movies that are widely accessible. Supermann (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. You are requested to provide sources here that indicates "significant roles" of the subject than making false claims regarding a WP:COI page. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic but you could be more respectful to @TheBirdsShedTears:, your comments are a little passive aggressive. deity 10:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People with true good faith would not come on Wikipedia after 20+ days and start commenting on deletion. I have never done so in my 15 years here, because I hope to inform readers. You are not a Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, are you? One notorious editor who touched on this topic has been caught. They are User:Dollyplay and User:Sleptlapps and User:Nyxaros2. I hope you are not one of them. Supermann (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was reading on Starship Troopers and went down a rabbit hole and it led me here. Just trying to help out man no need to get aggressive deity 14:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope you at least find time to watch the pentalogy of the Starship Troopers (franchise) before embarking on a deletionist path. Then I will truly believe you have good faith and are informed. Have a good weekend. Supermann (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the films after the first were pretty awful deity 01:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why don't you become a writer/director and reboot the entire franchise? It's not like you could otherwise time travel and delete 2/3/4/5 from history. And cancelling Stephen Hogan would gratify you and make you feel less awful?? His rendition of the theme song in 3 has brought the militarism in 1 to an all time high level. For that reason, I want readers not to be deprived of the opportunities to read about the actor on wikipedia. We agree to disagree. Supermann (talk) 05:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article can't really be improved further. That's not "cancelling" it's literally Wikipedia guidelines deity 06:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While you are being negative, I actually improved it in my honest opinion, thanks to new coverage by the Dublin Live. Your research skill is impressive. Supermann (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite impressive in many aspects deity 11:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you are having a great time with "Nyxaros" who is possibly behind the aforementioned three sock puppets. Glad to know you are at least not them. Happy editing and enjoy the rest of your weekend. Supermann (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator--not a notable actor. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching the sock! So User:Nyxaros2 is unrelated to User:Nyxaros? Supermann (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it was a troll name, yes. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So no consequences to User:Nyxaros? Interesting. Supermann (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly sourced, cited and significant roles are present on his page, I don't know if this was added after this discussion, but it seems to me that the original premise of the afd is moot. Hyperwave11 (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article was denied at AfC for lacking notability and the creator's repeated insistence upon submitting it without proper improvement. I've worked on this article, and much as I'd want to vote keep I feel like Hogan's marginal notability is just too little at the time being. Of the three strongest claims to "significant roles", the only one that would really convince me is Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution. His role in Starship Troopers 3: Marauder is not a "lead role" as the creator or the article claims, but rather a bit part that gets few hits on Google, and the other strong claim, Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith, is currently at AfD. Also, the DublinLive article to me is a bit weak for contributing to notability as it's largely Hogan talking about his experience on set CiphriusKane (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A "lead role" does not require you to be a production's main star. Hogan was the 4th named in the credits in Sardar Udham, and 3rd in Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. In Dracula: The Dark Prince he was listed 6th, but he played a bluelinked character that is usually a somewhat important role in Dracula films, and is one of the four roles mentioned here. He played Algernon Moncrieff (the second lead, I think) in The Importance of Being Earnest at the Abbey Theatre ("One of [Ireland's] leading cultural institutions"). That's in addition to his other roles which are smaller but there are a whole lot of them: recurring character (4 episodes) in Red Election, recurring role (6 episodes) in Kat & Alfie: Redwater, recurring roles (none more than a few episodes) in The Tudors and Injustice and Chosen and High Road. He also had other film roles and roles at top theatres but I don't know how big they were. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck it, I'm out. Supermann is once again bludgeoning and casting aspersions and attacks against me here, and I've had enough CiphriusKane (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed nomination, let's start over. The actual argument, apparently, to delete the article is that the article creator and main defender, User:Supermann, was paid for that. This hasn't been brought up here but was an important point at the deletion review. It's being argued now at the Conflict of Interest board. Apparently there's a lot of history around this. I don't know what the truth is here, but I do know we can't have fruitful discussions when the stated and actual reasons for the nom don't match. A nomination of "Marginal article, maybe acceptable on the merits, but looks to be quite possibly a work done for hire, so delete per WP:DENY" would have been a proper nom. We can't work blindfolded here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. Maybe the deal is something like "We senior editors know what's what here but we can't prove it, so just go about your business and let us work" but in that case just give us the real reasons so we can discuss them, or else do an administrative delete on the article or whatever and stop wasting our time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "malformed" about the nomination. [18]. The nomination is and was perfectly formed and structured, and about as neutral as you can get. There is absolutely no reason to "start over" when an AFD, filed by a longterm respected administrator and former ArbCom member, is neutral and concise, and perfectly posted. (This message/clarification is for the closing admin.) Softlavender (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"filed by a longterm respected administrator and former ArbCom member". The Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons, regarding edits. A non-excellent edit is a non-excellent edit. Would you prefer a different paradigm? To make it clearer since you insist, the nom was neutral and concise but also misleading and one could say spurious if so inclined. I'm confident this wasn't deliberate, but intent doesn't matter here. More background here. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing whatsoever spurious about the nomination. And the link you just posted shows it. Casting clearly unwarranted aspersions on the filer merely seems to reveal how much you are willing to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion along with Supermann, as has already been noted by Djm-leighpark, BusterD, and myself. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really respond on the merits since you choose to try to make this a behavioral issue... I would be harrassingly bludgeoning you if I did that I guess, and I don't think we want to go down that path. So whatever. I will say that I don't like that you are maintaining that providing a diff with a simple intro of "More background" is casting aspersions. Sounds like "how dare you libel someone by showing what they said" rubric which... I'm not super on board with.

So... even tho I prefer to speak colleague-to-colleague and not be SHOUTED AT IN ALL CAPS, fine, OK, WP:BLUDGEON. Which a few editors are bringing up with regularity, so lets look at it, beyond the title... so, it's somebody's opinion (which they are entitled to), it's long and I don't know which parts of it you mean. And (while many parts are reasonable) I plain don't agree with good parts of it, and it looks to be quite wrong-headed in places: "The [bad, bludgeoning] person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their '!vote'"... I mean what the gosh darn heck do you think we're supposed to doing here? Coming in with set opinions at the get-go and just shouting at each other? I get that this is common enough, but is this now supposed to be a virtue? Great Caesar's ghost. Herostratus (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a neutrally worded nomination by an experienced editor, who has historically tried to help the article-creator, of a borderline article "spurious" is casting aspersions. Posting 1,481 bytes of blather just now is yet more WP:BLUDGEONING, which has further served to make this AFD into a trainwreck. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well truth is a defense, but OK. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree over what AfD is basically for, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One error I already pointed out above is Hogan was never in any "minor documentaries." I do respect DGG, but if anyone doesn't have the courage to admit mistakes, then something is off. As he points out in his "my approach to admin functions," "Nobody should take anyone's advice as Gospel; I give the best I can, but I've been sometimes wrong." Hopefully I am not taking his words out of context. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make the nomination "malformed". It means that DGG mistook a minor non-notable film recreating real events as a documentary. It also doesn't mean DGG "doesn't have the courage to admit mistakes". No one as far as I can see has requested on his usertalk page that he change this. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, on the merits of the article alone, if WP:DENY is not in play. First of all (as deeper looking has found), the guy easily meets the WP:GNG, with:

1) A full-size paragraph reviewing his acting in a film. ~~The publication, Blueprintreview may not be super big but it has a decent article here.~~ EDIT: I have no idea what that publication is; it's opinion, so reliability is not a factor. Notability would be tho, and I think that this source isn't useful for GNG purposes and should be ignored (its still usable in the article).

2) This is a full long interview in Dublin Live, which looks like a legit mag (willing to be instructed otherwise) about popular culture stuff. It is a Mirror property and the Mirror is a tabloid, so that could be discussed. (The interview is about a film Hogan is in, not about him in the sense of the names of his dogs etc, altho you do have bits like "I'm a bit of a history freak" etc.)

3) There is an article in The Times (the London Times) which has several paragraphs just on Hogan, an editor has averred (I can't access it cos paywall).

Leaving aside the GNG, the guy is "notable" in the real world sense, in that he's had a long career, played a couple of title roles, played major roles (in the sense of being one of the 3-4-5 top players) in some other productions (which satisfied WP:NACTOR, including stage, and filled out his CV with many recurring roles on TV and film roles. Bottom line: I bet that we have never deleted an article on an actor with a CV like this (and that's just his film and TV credits, he has also had an extensive career at top British theaters). If so, rarely, and we probably shouldn't have. Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, the Blueprintreview website is not the same as the literary magazine with a Wikipedia article. Also, as brought up at another AfD also commenting that review, it does not meet the threshold of reliability as required of reviews establishing notability at WP:NFSOURCES due to the fact that it is impossible to establish the reliability of their publishing process by the fact that we cannot determine an editorial board or process. Generally, I don't have an opinion on the other sources or whether this article should be kept or deleted, but that specific source is not an adequate review nor is it the same as the literary mag. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 02:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, you're right, sorry. As to the passage, it is opinion, so reliability doesn't enter into it, as we assume that critics are truthfully writing what they think. What matters here is notability: is blueprintreview and/or the article author (Justin Richards) notable enough for their opinion to be worthwhile? I don't know. Here is the author's (Justin Richards) work there, he's apparently done some legit film work. It's... slim. He's never published an article in a real magazine that I can find. He has reviewed a number of films, so he's not my Uncle Dwight, and blueprintreview has a stable of (amateur?) reviewers, so it's not some guy's blog... but still... for notability purposes I'd tend to not want to include that, thanks for pointing that out. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are you for deleting that literary magazine with a wikipedia article that doesn't cite any sources then? not to mention RS. I just hope we are doing things consistently across the board, instead of me being told WP:OTHERSTUFF again and again. Supermann (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating_article(s) for deletion Here's the guide for starting an AfD CiphriusKane (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody deletes my contributions, I won't do so to others. That's how I roll and treat others. Knowledge is power. Information is power. More knowledge is good knowledge. It's at least a start. I can choose to discount that knowledge to bad knowledge. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Herostratus: for your continuous support. Having anticipated your paywall access issues, as the creator of the article, I had solicited help from the community and they have graciously helped! Pls see discussion at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2021_August_10 and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request/Archive_112 and the archived URL at Actors make their voices heard for audiobooks | Ireland | The Sunday Times (archive.md). It's actually in the article's reference section. As for the prior 2017 incident, I categorically deny again and again that Bliss Media has paid me to edit on Wikipedia to promote them. They are not interested in having a presence here. In fact, I haven't touched Bliss Media or the Thomas Price (actor) pages for sooooooooooooooo many days now. When one loses interest on some things, that's what happened. Maybe one day I will stop caring about this Stephen Hogan page too. Truth will come out. Supermann (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, User:Supermann, a lot of people don't seem to believe you and there's no way to prove it either way, but maybe they're right; you do have a past, and apparently your involvement is seen by some as annoying filibustering, so you might want to just back off and let other editors have their say. Herostratus (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The closer of the DRV specially mentioned issues with WP:BLUDGEON, and quite frankly Supermann & Herostratus that seems to be about what you are trying to do here. There enough AfD related drama at ANI already recently but I'm on the cusp of bring you people there. |Herostratus, at a rough glance you look like you unintentionly double !voted so I'd suggest changing that to a comment. There's a discussion at at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Supermann if there's a need to discuss issues with concerns of any COI/UPE by Supermann but I'd strongly suggest an AGF of innocent until guilty approach until evidenced there. To state the obvious I am spending time at this to look for a simple clear best WP:THREE argument for a keep. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't threaten people with ANI. Either open a case or keep quiet. ANI is not for waving around to frighten other editors with empty threats. That's just really insulting and inflammatory. It's not a good way to move discussions like this forward in a calm manner, I don't think.

I didn't double vote by accident. A pointed out that (in my opinion) the nom is malformed and we need to start over with the "This article was created under corrupt circumstances" front and center as a key point in the nomination. That's not a vote on the disposition of the article. Then, if we don't start over (which, probably not), on the merits of the article alone my vote is to keep it.

I prefer to speak English rather than SHOUT LINKS AT EACH OTHER. I can't read thru a bunch of essays to figure out what you're trying to say. Just be plain, man. And don't lump me in with User:Supermann, I don't know him and I'm my own person.

As to the rest, do you have any thoughts on the article itself? That's what we're supposed to be hare about. Herostratus (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hut 8.5 took us down a WP:GNG rabbit hole that is so deep that nobody seems to be able to get out of. But I just realized essay WP:GNGACTOR. So hopefully, we are toe to toe with this other essay: WP:THREE. To entertain that request for 3 RS anyways:

1) In the 2018 Mad as Hell, directed by Cassie McFarlane, Hogan played the significant role of Peter Finch/Howard Beale at Jermyn Street Theatre.^[1] This is listed in the Theatrical filmography section that CiphriusKane liked me to expand on earlier, but now has totally disavowed in his latest argument. The archived URL works. The author wrote, "It's a tall order to play a man as familiar and charismatic as Finch, but Stephen Hogan – the BBC Redwater star – makes a good fist of it. He captures Finch's outrage that people in the Hollywood community, and on the island of Jamaica, felt in a position to pontificate on how he should conduct his private life." The article featured a picture of Hogan. If this is not the treatment of a lead role, I don't know what is. Again, I haven't seen the work, but 95% here don't even bother to watch his movies that are widely available.

2) In the Starship Troopers 3: Marauder review, film critic Joe Leydon wrote for Variety, "Omar Anoke, the heroic sky marshal in charge of battling the big bugs, is a charismatic celebrity and chart-topping singer whose onstage movements and militaristic song list suggest Adolf Hitler as an 'American Idol' contestant."^[2] Scott Lowe of IGN wrote, "the Sky Marshal's saber rattling pop single...calls to mind Lee Greenwood's "I'm Proud to Be an American.^[3]. Please use "marshal" as keyword when you peruse these two sources. I can accept lumping them into just one single RS to demo his significant role as the baddie only second to the big alien bug.

3) Finally, his significant role as detective Swain in Sardar Udham per Dublin Live at https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/dublin-actor-stars-fascinating-new-21993385, if we are really talking about true AGF of innocent until proven guilty.

It's time to not move the goal posts every so often. I am not denying he is not as notable as some other Irish actors out there. But enough is enough with a long list of prolific contributions. WP:NACTOR must be respected. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Walker, Tim (February 21, 2018). "FINCH'S ANGER MANAGEMENT COURSE; Mad as Hell". The New European. Archived from the original on 2021-07-28.
^ Leydon, Joe (August 13, 2008). "Starship Troopers 3 Review". Variety.
^ Scott Lowe (12 May 2012). "Starship Troopers 3: Marauder Blu-Ray Review - IGN". IGN.com.

Comment: Thankyou for suggesting a top three references. As two seem to refer to the same Starship Troopers Marauder 3 role can someone consider replacing one of those with a source to a different role, possibly one for Sardar Udham perhaps? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to replace the Variety one for the Times article. I genuinely have nae idea why Supermann keeps touting sources that others have questioned the notability-determining of, while ignoring an article about his audiobook narration CiphriusKane (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you recall, there are folks who don't like the Times article either. Let's not forget that I didn't come up with the Times article in the history of the page. Another admin did. She encouraged me to push it back to mainspace after having been put back to draft. But she hasn't re-joined any of the conversation, saying it could go either way. I will try to follow up with her and see if she is willing to join now. She is the other editor I mentioned at the top of the DRV. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall there was 1 person unhappy with the article because they thought it was 4 paragraphs long. And I ken you didn't add the Times article, I did (the specific revision has been revdelled). And the admin said that there was marginal notability and there was naething stopping you from moving it. I was trying to help you here, show that Hogan had more than a bunch of passing mentions in reviews, but honestly this really isna worth my time. There's just circles upon circles, and this is just all too frustrating when my attempts to help get dismissed like this CiphriusKane (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we are from different cultures. I wasn't dismissing your citing Times article at all. I was just trying to point out the fact that there are other naysayers on that article. I appreciate your help truly and especially when you add stuff instead of destroying stuff. You can be way more helpful by watching (several of) his works, instead of spending all these time taking me to ANI, hounding/gravedigging my edits even after I have apologized how many times now? (Personal attacks removed) If you ever come visit NYC, I wish we could go see a movie together of your choosing and I take you out for lunch. But I guess that is an offer you are not interested in, because that would be me corrupting you financially. I apologize. Supermann (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it was appropriate, imo, to contact an editor previously involved with the article, the tone of this notification is completely inappropriate per WP:CANVASS: It's a wall of texts that I think you may not want to read, esp those questioning your wisdom of citing the Times article on his audiobook narrator contributions. So people are chiming in again at the AfD. Your weak keep might just help swing it into survival. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 20:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's "weak" and "might." It's like "Life is like a box of chocolates." One never knows what they is gonna get. Like in the case of asking CiphriusKane to chime in. Supermann (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supermann There is a world of difference between asking somebody to contribute and telling them how to vote. Adding in weasel words does not make it okay. And please provide evidence of the accusations you are making against me or I will redact them again. Enough is enough CiphriusKane (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided after nominator's latest comments regarding voice actor and other film professions notability (something for me to think about) ~~Delete per nom and Softlavender. Coverage not in-depth. Fails GNG and NACTOR.~~ ~~Keep per Herostratus' reply below regarding depth of coverage.~~ /I am but a reed swayed by the wind/ — Alalch Emis (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources already noted above are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 12:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two sources provided by Herostratus look good enough to count towards GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how any of it could be seen as in depth coverage. Could someone point me in a direction here? How could these sources be used to provide references to meaningful encyclopedic content? Say, if there's a paragraph written, but the only claims we would be verifying with that source are that X played Y role, that is a signal that the coverage is not in depth. — Alalch Emis (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the rule (WP:N) is very vague on what "in depth" means -- all it says is that a passing mention in part of a sentence is not "in depth", an entire book is. In between, you're on your own. "A good meaty paragraph" is my standard, another guy's is "100 words" (WP:100W), another's might be "enough to, taken together, make a decent article, more than a stub", and so on. You'll have to develop your own opinion on that. And of course it depends on particular circumstances. But if all you can get out it is "Smith has two sisters" or "Smith was graduated from Bryn Mawr" then no, that would not be in-depth coverage.

But if an entire paragraph is written about someone and all you can get out of it is "Smith played Puck in Richard III at the Old Howard", what's in the rest of paragraph? Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herostratus. This is undoubtedly a very minor actor, but they do narrowly pass GNG. SnowFire (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And that, SnowFire, is precisely the problem: very minor and yet encyclopedic--but not based on the GNG, only on the narrowest and most inclusionist interprations of the GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly promotional, advertisement article on a non-notable mainly-voice actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR, no matter how one tries to twist the evidence or bludgeon the discussion. I have an exceptionally hard time believing people are defending this article. To me it is a sign of how far Wikipedia has fallen. Seriously people, a couple of sentences about his audiobook readings in The Times and the following ridiculous paragraph on a blog (self-published) review-site equates to notability?

Stephen manages to portray an okay representation of a New York businessman well out of his comfort zone, but I have to admit I never really warmed to the man. He starts off as being quite whiney, moves along to a rather bolshie state and then finally gets overly sentimental about the Lord’s Prayer. Having said that, if that’s what the guy who it was based on was like then fair play to Hogan for staying true to the person.

Please note carefully that interviews do not count towards notability (being non-independent). That is one of the main principles of Wikipedia and AFD. Other sources are passing mentions or not mentions at all. So we're left with no significant independent coverage in reliable sources, much less WP:NACTOR. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"interviews do not count towards notability"... you mean if I score a five-page interview in Rolling Stone that's not a factor in whether I'm wikinotable? And that's a key principle. Herostratus (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is far more nuanced than that. Some interviews cannot count towards notability, but some certainly can. Depending on the type, content, and source where the interview was published, interviews can absolutely be used as sources and count for notability. See Wikipedia:Interviews, which while an essay, contains good advice for use of interviews. Many interviews would not be appropriate for such uses, but some are. --Jayron 32 14:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that interviews can only contribute to notability if they contain significant independent analysis and background by the interviewer/author. Since most high-quality magazines would include substantial commentary in the introduction to an interview, such an interview would likely work towards GNG, but not because it was in a prominent publication. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my reading of this discussion and the associated DRV, I'm still surprised to find no mention of the violation of WP:Biographies of living persons policy. While we have supporting sources aplenty, we lack a single anchoring source which meets the BLP standard (independent reliable source directly detailing the subject, not merely their works). As of this datestamp, the subject's birthday is unsourced (look at the applied source and see). Do "keep" asserting editors feel any responsibility to the living human being described in this page? Without directly detailing biographic sources, this page is merely original research, a collection of works. I just thought since we've been discussing this article about an actual human for three weeks I'd introduce a policy central to all such discussions. BusterD (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is there a requirement to include a "biographical source"? You need to be enormously famous for a reliable source to even consider writing a biography about you. If this were a requirement then we would be deleting 99% of our BLP articles. Mlb96 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the birthday proof at [redacted]. When anyone forms a company in the UK, they need to provide IDs to the govt. I know that because I am a tax accountant. And the Companies House is where we go for info that is publicly available. It's one of the corp filings at [redacted] where he [redacted, BLP assertion with no ref]. This is more reliable than just a biographer/ghostwriter writing down a birthday without really checking his ID. I don't want to grave dig my own edits. I probably didn't use the first link, because it wouldn't provide enough context of what the amazonaws.com is all about. After I probably put down the 2nd link, another editor came in to use an upper-level link. That's I think what happened. I can accept such revisions. Please feel free to prove me wrong. I am not getting hung up by his birthday anymore. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With moderate to significant alarm, I ask rhetorically: is it AT ALL appropriate to include links, both here and the one used as a citation for the birth date in the article, that includes mailing addresses of the subject? ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 04:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 2014 address. 7 YEARS AGO. CLOSE TO 8. He has probably moved. I am not his groupie enough to show up at his door step to ask for autograph. I am not harassing him. Supermann (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's never appropriate to dox subjects in any way shape or form, particularly private persons, and "He has probably moved" is... not how BLP works. I redacted the links (technically should be oversighted, but not worth filing IMO), do not restore them but go to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you like. (But I believe that birthdates are frequently not ref'd and I think it is de facto common practice to permit this if there's no dispute or objection.) Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not only passes GNG but he's described as 'Well known' and 'known for numerous roles' which supports his real-world notability. JeffUK (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There should come a point where a large number of roles, some of which are marginal as to whether they are major roles, should add up to at least as much as two major roles. This is the sort of case where Wikipedia winds up looking silly by deleting a biography. The subject has a long list of marginal roles that should more than add up to enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - I !voted to Endorse the deletion at DRV because there was no error by the closer and no claim of error by the closer (only disruption of the DRV by the appellant). But a Delete would be an error by the Wikipedia community. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the fellow who previously closed this process as "delete", I find it hard to disagree with User:Robert McClenon's assertions about the pedia looking silly and making an error by deleting. Bludgeoning by some in this discussion and the resulting DRV has steered conversation from the central issues. I still hold the community has a responsibility to any living human subject to base articles on actual coverage (some of which might be interviews) and not as a mere accumulation of credits, however many. BusterD (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing sufficient WP:SIGCOV, just a long list of small roles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Based on subsequent discussion, I'd be willing to keep the article; considering the disproportionate amount of trouble my nomination has caused, i regret making it--my approach to borderline notability is to let the community decide at AfD. Thinking more generally, we have often been very restrictive about voice actors, as with other people associated with film who do not actually appear--I think perhaps we should take a broader approach here. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be too hard on yourself. You acted in good faith; it appears that others in this thread have not done so, but you share no blame for that, you can't control how anyone else will choose to comport themselves. Incidentally, this is why I generally always let WP:GNG guide my decisions here. The SNGs like NACTOR are best treated as supplements to the GNG, and I tend to think of them as indicating where sources is usually so likely to exist that a subject who passes the SNG would also pass the GNG. The converse is almost always a bad way to think; just because a subject does not themselves pass the criteria of an SNG doesn't mean that sufficient independent, reliable sourcing doesn't exist. Ultimately, Wikipedia shouldn't care why a subject is notable (in the sense that there is sufficient sources about that subject), merely that they are notable (which is to say, that sources exist). If the SNGs have any use, it is in helping direct editors to search for where sources are likely to exist. But if the sources exist, the sources exist, even if we can't find any SNG to justify anything. --Jayron 32 18:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination did not cause any trouble, but I appreciate the concern from DGG. This overlong process did have the desired effect of revealing and removing a recalcitrant bad actor (apparently without removing from the pedia a weak article about a fine working actor). This was a good outcome. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination caused trouble. Here's how I'd characterize the process, based mainly on this dif and this:

NOMINATION: I think this article doesn't meet our standards. (No mention of anything about the author so as always the natural assumption is that that's not an issue.)
COMMUNITY: OK, let's take the time and effort to discuss this article on the its merits. Let's look at refs and find or not find sufficient material to support an article and so on.
CLOSE: Article deleted on basis of WP:DENY (this wasn't said and it took some of back-and-forth and effort before this became clear. My assumption -- everyone's i suppose -- was that the close was on the merits of the article.)

If there's another way to intepret those diffs I'd be sincerely glad to be educated.

Deleting on grounds of WP:DENY is fine I guess (if that's the usual practice). If I'd known that DENY was in play, I would have (after investigation and consideration) probably argued to not delete on the basis of DENY. I didn't get that chance because I didn't know. It may be that DENY cases shouldn't be discussed openly, and maybe for good organizational reasons (sounds weird, but maybe). If so in future could you please just speedy-delete these pages rather than doing kabuki at AfD? This was poor communication. My time's been ill-used. I get that I've said this above so and gotten no traction and I'm repeating myself, that few if any editors will get the point or care, and that if anything I'm going to get in trouble for repeating myself or "casting aspersions" on "an experienced editor" (per an editor above). Doesn't make me wrong tho. Herostratus (talk) 11:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We all can agree your time's been ill-used, User:Herostratus. You have painted yourself into this corner with your constant lack of good faith, apparent failure to read deeply, and frequent disparagement of competency throughout these processes. There's so much wrong about what you've said it's difficult to begin. Accusations of cabal-ism. Willful misreading. You diatribe on the smallest issue without first asking for clarification. Nobody stopped you from having input on this process BEFORE my close. I don't see anyone but yourself and the former Supermann disputing my actual close. For my part I weighed whether to contribute to discussion, then did about 30 minutes of reading. I chose to delete 3-0 on the merits; the three were editors in good standing, the "keep" made zero case and was a previously admitted bad actor, the article itself was a BLP with poorly sourced personal information. I closed quietly per DENY. Not closed per DENY. Quietly per DENY. That's how WP:DENY works. (Sometimes reading the all caps link is instructive.) Supermann approached me on my talk, I declined to reverse or relist but suggested DRV. At the DRV, the keep made no case and kept making no case over and over. Then comes Herostratus, full of judgement but little curiosity. Ask me personally for clarification on my close? Nope. Inquire inside the DRV about my process? Too much trouble. So you write a diatribe which will forever mark you as the editor you were as of that datestamp. Since then, I've just been watching you hang yourself, friend. Supermann is gone, which is what DGG would have liked to do but was just too personally kind to do. You have outed yourself. I'm watching women's college basketball with friends. Things could be worse. BusterD (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sheesh, calm down. This is business, not personal. We're trying to figure if the communication here was imperfect and if so, how, and how to correct for future. OK looks like you think it was fine, so we're mostly going to have to agree to disagree about that, and OK. Couple points I want to get clarity on tho:

OK, you're saying "I closed quietly per DENY. Not closed per DENY. Quietly per DENY. That's how WP:DENY works." Alright, I'm hearing you. WP:DENY is an essay. It does say that (if you don't have speedy-delete grounds) to "quietly revert or blank. Reserve listing the page as miscellany for deletion for serious matters, noting that a high-profile forum discussion of vandalism is the opposite of'deny recognition'". Fine I guess. I'm sure "revert or blank" can be extended to "delete" also, and "miscellany for deletion" extended to AfD also. (I personally wouldn't describe the creation of Stephan Hogan as vandalism, but I don't know much about vandalism and you guys do). So.. Why didn't you just do that.

Ok, so, I couldn't have had input before your close because I wasn't aware of the AfD -- can't be everywhere after all. In the dif above you wrote "User:Herostratus, before your posting above, I must ask whether you were you aware of User:DGG's previous attempts to help rehabilitate User:Supermann after User:Yamla twice blocked them etc etc etc..." Well of course I wasn't. How could I have been? I can't read minds. I can't follow every contetemps like that. I'm mostly busy doing other stuff.

Anyway we're not making progress here, so OK. Agree to disagree.

I see where you're coming from about my contributions. You're correct that I made some misteps, yes. Overall, I don't know. We have different styles and all and mine usually works for me. We have different backgrounds I'm sure and that's always hard. I'm bad at interpersonal politics, and getting good at that isn't so easy if you don't have it naturally.

OK so, one last thing, no, I would not recommend going down the path of eternal ennmity, here. You have to try to be collegial with editors even if you don't like them. I've gone hammer and tongs with editors and turned around and worked with them fine later. None of this is personal. It's just business. I'm fine with working with you in future, anytime.

And as to "...will forever mark you as the editor you were as of that datestamp... Since then, I've just been watching you hang yourself, friend. Supermann is gone..." an unfriendly person might fill in "Supermann is gone..." as "...and you're next paesano, capice?" You don't want to be giving people any false impressions like that, I hope. You know how people are. (Dont' worry, I get that your back us up right now (mine too!) so don't worry about it.) Herostratus (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, It seems you are the first editor in this AfD who started criticising other editors than presenting your opinions in a civil manner. It seems you are wasting the time of those folks who are reading comments here. Most parts of your comments are about "yourself and your previous comments". Please pay additional attention to WP:AGF, neutrality, civility, and WP:DISCUSSAFD. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonotable actor. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent secondary sources. The prose at the top is direct from the subject, and the rest is directory information. The article links to many articles, but none link this one. The subject has no independent reviews. The WP:THREE or four references listed halfway up above fail the GNG. This biography and listing of work, impressive as it is, belongs at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0389621/, where it is. Wikipedia should not host biographies before any other independent reliable sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SmokeyJoe and GoodDay. I could reply here, in particular I could say that "Wikipedia should not host biographies before any other independent reliable sources" sounds pretty idiosyncratic to me (I have not seen this before) and quite a high bar, and it would require the deletion of a good percentage of our bio articles I'd guess, and that this is something we could think about together. However, if I did do that, I might hauled to WP:ANI, partly on the basis of a rather wrongheaded essay, WP:BLUDGEON, which some editors here seem to have latched onto. So I guess I won't. Herostratus (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Herostratus. Yes. WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. The policy root for my !vote is WP:PSTS. Zero secondary sources are not enough. That’s why what prose there is is stating factoids without context.

OTHERSTUFF exists. NSPORTS in particular is bad. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

User:Supermann has been blocked, partly on the basis of his behavior right here, but mainly as his behavior is "straw that broke the camel's back" as he's had an allegedly doleful history here (which may be entirely true). Supermann has a been a strong advocate for keeping this article, so his disappearance alters the dynamic from this point forward, just letting people know.
I expect this thread will close soon, but I got to wondering "where does this Hogan fellow fit in our collection of articles about actors"? So for my own personal curiosity I'm going to check 20 random actor articles -- I'll pick some random actor category and look at the first "A" article, the first "B" article, and so. I may as well write it down here, you never know, somebody might care. As always, I'll report the results without fear or faver (just want the facts), so here goes! It's background data, I'll hat it, and nobody has to read it, so y'all please don't have me blocked, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or weak keep: (edit conflict) I give up. If I goto ANI about the bludgeons I'll simply be blocked for timewasting. I've spent too much time on this already, and I really need to put in a mention of Hogan's talent at accent's; really useful for nations bung in a little more about his tole in Sardar Udham, and tweak a sentence at the television section. And do a half decent lead summary, after winging on COIN about the fails to content the lead section from the body I'd be stupid to do the same thing overtly here myself. And I forgot about his repeated attempts to get the Tate job films. The Take the High Road, Starship Troopers 3: Marauder and Sardar Udham roles are all significant. The upcoming Vikings Valhalla might be. I think Hogan's name was on the from page of an Irish Sunday last week. Anyway perhaps Hogan will narrate some Wikipedia AfD, DRV and COIN dramas. Oh and I've forgot to sort about 20 wikilinks inbound to this page. If I go on any more I'll simply dox the middle name, do a Lucan, or wonder if his clan had a bit part in Delaney's Donkey, I'm mentally done on this AfD. Thankyou. 00:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) (Djm-mobile=Djm-leighpark) Djm-mobile (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Well here I spent a few hours comparing this article to others (for my own satisfaction) but I don't want to make anyone sad, so skip it. I put in the talk page for posterity. Herostratus (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Switching to delete per harrassment on talk page that seems designed to really fuck me up. I'm more fucked than this article. Djm-mobile (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have sorted the inbound wikilinks that were lost in the relist along with others. In the event this article goes deleted then returned as TOOSOON examining the deleted admins contributions history at the time of deletion/AfD closer will give a good indication of the inbound wikilinks to be restored. I think nearly 40 articles link here, but it is possible I have made one or two mistakes. Thankyou. Bigdelboy=Djm-mobile=Djm-leighpark. -- Bigdelboy (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – To me it is clear that he does not meet WP:NACTOR based on his film/TV acting, but I am less sure about his work on the stage. NACTOR talks about "significant roles in multiple notable [...] stage performances", so the question is what constitutes a notable stage performance. Very few individual stage productions have separate articles, after all. Hogan has had significant roles in Mad as Hell at the Jermyn Street Theatre, The Importance of Being Earnest at the Abbey Theatre, and A Doll's House at Perth Theatre; The Abbey Theatre in particular is a major stage, but there is a lack of reviews of the production, which makes me think that it is probably not that notable. I spent some time trying to unearth information about his theatre work when this was a draft, so I'm pretty sure there isn't a lot of coverage that hasn't already been used in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete After looking this over I'm inclined to go with what Bonadea said. Since it's clear he isn't notable enough as film/TV actor, but he might be with the theater work. I just don't know enough about the notability of theater actors to say though and the guideline about it is sorta vague. So here we are. I could see the article being kept depending on how "significant roles" is interpreted though. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Anderson (artist)

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

Not enough sources. I don't think it should qualify to be an article. And also does not have significant data. The article did not undergo AFC. And also the sources are not reliable to be given as a support for the article. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 09:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Feeble though this stub is, it links to evidence that the subject's work is in the permanent collections of three museums that could reasonably be called prestigious. Therefore she passes WP:ARTIST (criterion 4d). Regardless of either its current feebleness or whether or not the nominator "[thinks] it should qualify to be an article", this (or an improvement on it) does qualify. -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NARTIST criteria #4, as she is in several notable museum collections. There is nothing wrong with the sourcing for the info in this short stub, it suffiently proves that she is in those collections. OP does not mention policy-based rationalle for deletion. Article can be improved and should be retained; AfD is not clean up. Netherzone (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more information available from the Barbara Archer Gallery reference, as it reproduces three newspaper articles by Catherine Fox. I added content using only one of the articles. David notMD (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist's work is in the collection of the Whitney. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a documented career, museums pieces, article improvement since the nomination. Bingo. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per User:Itcouldbepossible, the nominator is new to Wikipedia. Is everyone OK with a WP:SNOW close? It will snow in hell before we delete an article on an artist whose work is in the collections of several notable museums. Instructions for withdrawing the nomination are at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination. Vexations (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a snow keep or withdrawl. Netherzone (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ashton, Wisconsin. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Corners, Wisconsin

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

Just a cross-roads near Ashton, Wisconsin according to the reference cited in the article. GNIS is not a reliable source for whether a place is populated and anyway does not meet the requirement for legal recognition under WP:GEOLAND#1 per WP:GNIS. The Wisconsin historical society page linked in the article is a search-link (i.e., not a page that would have been archived and maybe never a real page) that goes to a 404 page. Checking the location on GMaps plainly appears to be a cross-roads with a restaurant/bar and petrol station (that do not give their addresses as Ashton Corners but instead as Middleton and/or County Road K). Apparently a traffic accident happened near there once, and another time, and a robbery, but otherwise the usual obituary pages and so-forth.

One of many thousands of of articles about "unincorporated communities" on Wikipedia that in reality just cross-roads/railway stations/sidings/mines etc. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer and we do not just list every place, or even every populated place, but only those that either pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND#1. We really shouldn't have a situation where deleting these articles requires 10 or 20 times more times than creating them did. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ashton, Wisconsin. Ashton Corners itself isn't much more than a crossroads, and there aren't really any sources to base an article on. That being said, it takes its name from nearby Ashton, which is an actual community with schools, a historic church, and a local baseball team. There's not really anything to merge, but it seems worth keeping the redirect around as a search target. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If already redirect to Springfield, Dane County, Wisconsin as both Ashton and Ashton Corners are incorporated communities in the Town of Springfield. One is more notable, for sure. Takes the name from redirecting worries me, as places in North America, Oceania, and South America often take their names from places in Europe. I'm still considering if this can be kept. gidonb (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The legally approved 2019 plan of the Town of Springfield satisfies the "legal recognition" requirement for this populated place. Thus Ashton Corners meets WP:GEOLAND #1. The document also contains a lot of information to work with when expanding the article, including an entry on Ashton Corners. gidonb (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being named in a town plan as a place where a few houses and a gas station are, within a larger community, is not being "legally recognised" per WP:GEOLAND#1. E.g., incorporation, or at least some evidence of self-governance is needed for that, and this basically just shows that it is part of a larger community. Even if it were, you still need to have enough content to actually write an encyclopaedia article about it (because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia) which there isn't. Also fails WP:GNG for lack of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per TheCatalyst31. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 20:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TheCatalyst31 Djflem (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lake View Cemetery (Seattle). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graves of Bruce and Brandon Lee

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

Notability isn't inherited just for being the grave of a famous person (or two famous people), suggest a merge to Lake View Cemetery (Seattle) wizzito | say hello! 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yes, lots and lots of celebrities have graves that people might visit and may be listed in travel guides, but everything here can be covered in Lake View Cemetery (Seattle), as well as Brandon_Lee#Death and Bruce_Lee#Death. Reywas92^Talk 14:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Been there, seen this (actually, before the permanent headstone for Brandon was erected. Man, I'm getting old), agree with merge to cemetery, mention in respective articles. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lake View Cemetery (Seattle) - The coverage on the graves, specifically, is largely relegated to just travel/tourism guides, and it makes more sense for this information to be covered on the article on the cemetery itself rather than a standalone article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These aren't the Taj Mahal. No more notable than the grave of Stephen Leacock near where I live; just graves. Merge as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 18 November 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. czar 09:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Macau national under-20 football team

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

Fails gng, is a tiny stub, and has zero sources. Hyperwave11 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- team doesn't seem to exist; according to this (if you click open the 'Macao' drop down) there is no under-20 team for this country. Giant Snowman 19:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I too found no evidence for this team existing in my WP:BEFORE. Countries don't have to have a U20 team specifically, some just have U21 or some other age. Macau is of course a fairly small Chinese SAR and even the main men's team is made up of amateurs, so it's not surprising if it doesn't have a U20 squad. FOARP (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Team doesn't seem to exist per previous comments. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:10, 17 November 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 11:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Saini

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

Makes a number of claims - but doesn't appear to be notable. All of this is self promo and even his website link doesn't work Gbawden (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Gbawden (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a hoax. I have read Rahul Saini in past and this picture is surely not him! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG due to the lack of detailed coverage in reliable media. Venkat TL (talk) 08:25, 19 November 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. czar 09:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Adams Jr.

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

Fails WP:BASIC non-notable Tuskegee Airman who never served overseas

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://www.interment.net/data/us/oh/jefferson/union-cemetery/records-e.htm		unclear who produces and edits it	mere listing of burial	✘ No
https://books.google.ae/books?id=1qC51h8HrWQC&q=William+p.+Armstrong+tuskegee&pg=PA217&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=William%20p.%20Armstrong%20tuskegee&f=false			mere listing only	✘ No
https://www.thatcherfuneralhome.com/obituary/John-AdamsJr	Funeral home obituary, unclear who it was written by	unclear who it was written by		✘ No
https://cafriseabove.org/john-h-adams-jr/	The story seems to largely come from an interview he gave to the Kansas City Star so is not independent. CAF is a site dedicated to "Inspiring young people to RISE ABOVE adversity using the lessons and stories of the Tuskegee Airmen and the WASP" so its independence is questionable	CAF is a user contributed website without clear editorial oversight or peer review process		✘ No
http://logicalthinker2.tripod.com/Tuskegeeaircraft.html			about the aircraft not him	✘ No
The Tuskegee Airmen: The men who changed a nation			mere listing of his graduating class	✘ No
https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ213/PLAW-109publ213.pdf			Law relating to the award of the Congressional Gold Medal not about him	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Mztourist (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a list. Not notable on his own. Unit awards convey no individual notability. Intothat darkness 20:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. I'd consider the funeral home obituary probably reliable but not independent, those things tend to be supplied by family members. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic lacks sufficient coverage to meet WP:BASIC and enough distinction to meet ANYBIO. Avilich (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus landed on keep in the end. Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Select

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

Messy and semi-advertorialized article about a television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. To be fair, this was a television show with multiple editions in different countries, so I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived European media coverage than I've got can find better sources to salvage it with -- but as written it's referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself, and the only thing I was able to establish in the research databases that are available to me is that the Canadian version never got any WP:GNG-worthy media coverage in Canada (all I can find is a handful of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things). So, again, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find better European media coverage of the European versions to fix the sourcing with, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because the article never gets around to telling us what it is!! Is it a countdown show or viewer request show playing music videos? And its Canadian successor, 969 (TV series), isn't any better (plays music videos and also hyped films, fashion, and games); I thought MTV Canada could only play a small amount of music videos because it was under a talk show license. Just based on a lack of clarity, a WP:TNT is needed if anyone bothers to re-create this. Nate • (chatter) 01:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This programme passes notability guidelines but the article does need tidying up. Plus I've made the description of the programme clearer in the article's introductionRillington (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "passing notability guidelines" without reliable source coverage in independent sources. Wikipedia articles have often been filled with false claims designed to make the topic sound more notable than it really was — so notability doesn't vest in the things the article says, it vests in the quality of the referencing you can or can't find and show to properly verify that the things it says are true. But every single reference currently in the article is the show's own self-published content about itself, which is not the kind of referencing we're looking for. So since there's no such thing as notability without third party media coverage, what media coverage, in sources independent of its own self-published content about itself, are you suggesting supports notability here? Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NTV. Additionally, I found some coverage in google books such as: [19], [20] (pages 35-36, 53, 178) There were other refs in French and coverage the MTV Select awards in Billboard in google books. I think its pretty clear the program would pass WP:SIGCOV just from what's in the first 10 pages of google books alone. Was a WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The gbooks hits are not significant coverage but mere passing mentions about the program in large academic monographs on other topics. They demonstrate little more than it existed and it was a request show. There is no other sign of significant coverage in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't demonstrated by the sources, being only primary sources and nothing from independent reliable sources. It's not a badly written article so if some independent secondary sources can be found and added i would change my vote. Vanteloop (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Following the improvements and sources added by User:Alalch Emis I am changing my opinion to Keep Vanteloop (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see sources 1, sources 2, sources 3. The topic is notable and the article is well-written but needs to incorporate some of the above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Caleb Stanford:, dunping gsearch links and expecting the other editors to sort through them to find evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is not a persuasive argument for notability. Please specify which specific references you believe meet those criteria. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not have to go through the links further and I apologize, but I maintain that the material on this page should be kept. The references exist, they only need to be sifted through by someone who has the time to improve the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrably established with significant coverage in secondary sources. Avilich (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing out vote, no opinion on recent expansion. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The usefulness of the provided sources has been contested: further analyses of their contents would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV -- this is a program that aired on a television station with a broad regional or national audience, and there are sources about it that make it clear what it was, and enable inclusion of some encyclopedic content; this is sufficient to pass the SNG. TNT isn't needed, the article isn't that bad. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alalch Emis: please re-read WP:Notability_(media)#Relation_to_General_notability, of which the referenced NTV is a part: A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. ...Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The only sources so far advanced in the article or this discussion are "trivial or incidental", being passing mentions at best. There has been no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources advanced by anyone. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Eggishorn, the 'sources' provided above are just google searches - they don't demonstrate notability as far as I can tell. The searching I have done shows that it is mentioned in passing at best. If there are reliable secondary sources that mention this show in a notable way I will change my opinion Vanteloop (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book search provides a couple of usable sources: [21], and there's a German one[22] The program is noted in media studies as an example of an interactive program. Edit: basically, 4meter4, already laid out the keep case. I don't think that at least the book sources are "trivial or incidental". — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The books you list, which 4meter4 already brought up, are (as previously noted) trivial mentions. The most expansive is the German book that translates to "Media convergence and subject formation: media interactions using the example of music television and the Internet" and all its references are to MTV Select as being one of a number of video request programs. There are 3 paragraphs in a 315 page academic monograph which is certainly not significant coverage by any reasonable estimation. It does not provide and analysis of the requests, history of the program, indication of impact, or any other substantive information on the program. It is, in point of fact, a perfect example of what not to do in AfD discussions: simply count Gsearch results without actually characterizing them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree that these aren't significant. It doesn't matter at all that it's an x number of pages from y, three pages of text is quite in-depth already. And the other book isn't trivial either. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder how well you're reading these supposed significant mentions. The German one isn't three pages, it's less than three paragraphs. The other book isn't even that. The full extent of the mention of this program is literally a sentence fragment listing this program as one of many that allowed viewer requests. Please see WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. None of your references approach that definition. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs, pages, whatever, three paragraphs can still be plenty in-depth, and material of such length has been considered SIGCOV innumerable times. These sources address the topic somewhat directly and note how the program works in what I'd say is above-average technical detail. An interesting aspect of the subject from a wider social standpoint is considered in a theoretical framework. You can stop with the admonitory tone btw, it's fine to disagree. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely more in-depth sources and I'm working on the article. For example: "Where's the beat?", Thu 11 Nov 1999 , The Guardian — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look, I made cool improvements to the article based on in depth coverage in The Guardian! (diff) — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Alalch Emis on this point.

Comment: I agree with User:Alalch Emis in the above discussion. Additionally, the Guardian links now added appear to demonstrate WP:Notability and directly establish the conditions for this commitment in the OP: "I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find better European media coverage of the European versions to fix the sourcing with, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be considerably better than this." Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTV, WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Kudos to Alalch Emis for demonstrating the notability of the subject. --Cavarrone 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, improved by Alalch Emis since the last relist. NemesisAT (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Earth

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

There is no "Flag of Earth". The proposals are not individually notable; they are sourced primarily to their own promoters. There are other proposals (one by Oskar Pernefeldt as part of a university thesis somehow got covered by the Washington Post) but none of them are credible efforts towards being generally accepted. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Cards84664 05:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nomination rationale. Louie (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator is correct. These proposals are not individually notable, and their synthesis is just (perhaps unintentionally) gaming GNG by creating a situation in which more than one source exists on the conglomerated topic. The subject is not notable. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly I was surprised not to see much coverage for this topic as a whole in WP:BEFORE. Found an article from Smithsonian Magazine mostly focused on the Oskar Pernefeldt design, and a Wired article which actually does focus on the topic as a whole, but I don't think these are enough to justify keeping the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GCG.Cinadon 36 14:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a formal criterion for notability of flags? --23mason (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would presume either it’s a) an official government work or b) has significant reliable coverage like anything else Dronebogus (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Merge anything of worth and then, please, redirect to University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. This is an WP:ATD and since the article is so short (outside of useless information about classes, faculty...), whatever is worthy can be merged and a simple redireect to the appropriate section makes sense.

Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith on this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Plasma-Material Interactions

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

Non-notable research center. WP:BEFORE yields no secondary sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 3 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) 23:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Take a look at the academic work by the center's director at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Hv__SVAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra Since most of those articles are by mutiple authors, I think that the collaborations at the Center demonstrate not only the notability of individual authors but of the center as a whole. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The subject quite evidently does not attain the necessary level of independent notability. Online and in-book searches scare up a lot of hits about "plasma-material interactions" but not about the center. The merging would actually be an act of leniency, since not even Urbana's Department of Nuclear, Plasma and Radiological Engineering, the unit to which our subject belongs, has a Wikipedia entry. -The Gnome (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 04:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge To the target identified above. This clearly isn't notable enough as a stand alone subject to warrant an article. Plus, it reads like an advert anyway and appears to have been created/mainly edited by an SPA account. As a side, maybe the center's director is notable enough to warrant an article about them due to their academic work. I'd be fine with that, but notability isn't inherited. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:56, 18 November 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 11:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tillandsia 'Pink Panther'

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

For background to this rather large nomination, please see the previous bundles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Feather Duster', which closed with a consensus to delete the first 10 of these, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Gunalda', which closed with a consensus to delete the next 50. Please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#cultivars for a discussion of the notability of cultivars, which was unanimous in affirming that cultivars must meet WP:GNG and do not have the presumption of notability granted to official taxonomic ranks such as species (and in which numerous participants voiced the opinion that undersourced cultivars ought to be deleted).

The remainder of this statement is copy-pasted (slightly reworded) from the Feather Duster AfD linked above:

All of the following articles are sourced solely to the cultivar database maintained by the Bromeliad Society International. Anyone can submit new cultivars to this database simply by filling in an email form. There does not seem to be any rigorous scrutinizing or verification process that the cultivar even exists, which is to say that it is essentially a user-generated primary source. Even if it were sufficiently reliable, I have not been able to locate any independent coverage for any of the cultivars I have tagged, nor do I expect to locate any for other similar cultivar stubs. It's clear that these cultivars don't meet the threshold for a standalone article either on verifiability or on notability.

When I encountered cultivars of a single species, I redirected to the parent species as possible search terms. Unfortunately, the great majority are hybrids of two species. From a technical perspective, this makes merging difficult, as an article cannot be redirected to two places and there is no objective way to determine which of the two "parent" species should have the redirect (and never mind those which are hybrids of hybrids). Merging would also mean including information in the species articles sourced only to a user-generated primary source.

Merging each one to the genus article would take up an enormous amount of space and place similar undue importance on a large list of unverified, non-notable cultivars. Merging to a standalone list is also not suitable, as the list would fail the verifiability/notability criteria owing to a lack of independent sourcing.

The following 48 cultivars will be included in this nomination just as soon as I can tag them. As before, I intend to notify WP:PLANTS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A rather large list

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rationale is appropriate. I haven't examined every single one of these, but a cursory look shows that these cultivars aren't notable and may not be verifiable. If anything, I would just add a sentence to the genus indicating that numerous cultivars exist... if that. We don't need an article for each of these. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous two AFDs. SnowFire (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous AFD. None of these articles have substantial content. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Marsh (writer)

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

A game designer who fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Pilaz (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a very difficult one, because "Ian Marsh" is an extremely common name, the field in which he works is one that's dominated by fan sites and unreliable sources, and much of his significant work dates to before the internet. It's extremely hard to think of a search term that will find him, and in reliable places. But here's the thing: he was assistant editor of White Dwarf, the games magazine run by Games Workshop, for 27 editions (and chief editor for 4). Games Workshop is, historically, the most significant games company in the UK, responsible for the early dissemination of Dungeons and Dragons in the UK, and thus the birth of the modern gaming industry. White Dwarf is of enormous significance to role-play gamers (who are a very large group of WP readers). Although Marsh wasn't at the level of Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson (whose game-books can still be found in every public library), he was an influential figure at a pivotal time in the history of gaming, and I'm very nervous about deleting this article. I think it's of genuine and legitimate interest to our readers. Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 16 November 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 03:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Visser

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

The subject likely falls short of both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:SIGCOV. A previous PROD was declined last month by article creator. TJMSmith (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my online search did not produce any promising results, and the sources in the article do not seem to be independent. Therefore, I believe this subject fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (did not play pro ball) and WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards, records -- D2 All-American doesn't do it), and WP:GNG (not finding the WP:SIGCOV needed). I did find some short blurbs (e.g., this, this and this) but nothing that reaches the GNG standard. Also some coverage from his high school playing career, e.g., this, but I discount such coverage per WP:YOUNGATH. Cbl62 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A further search turned up this piece of SIGCOV. If additional SIGCOV is brought forward, I will keep an open mind. Cbl62 (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, albeit weakly. In addition to this source noted by Cb162, we'd need another source. I've been looking, and while I found out that he had a acting career, and I can find newspaper clippings from his high school days and on the fact that he tried out and signed with the Texans, but I can't yet find enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC. After Visser was Waived in 2009, there's almost zero coverage of him in newspapers archived by newspapers.com and those available on google search. I'm left to conclude that he's probably not notable, though another source (or two) might be able to change my mind. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The person never played in the NFL. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, coverage not listed above that I found in my search includes: FERRIS' JAKE VISSER TO INK FREE AGENT DEAL WITH NFL TEAM from Ferris-Pages.org; Jake Visser Secures "Touchback" Movie Role from FerrisStateBulldogs.com; Visser's Dream are Still Alive from The Ferris State Torch; From the gridiron to the big screen also from The Ferris State Torch; Excellence - Jake Visser from Ferris.edu; and Ferris State's Jake Visser Named D-II CCA "Male Scholar-Athlete of the Year" from Gliac.org. Though I'm not sure if any are independent. I also see another article on google (from The Holland Sentinel) that's titled "GVSU soccer player earns GLIAC's top academic honor" and the preview shows "Ferris State University football player Jake Visser received the men's honor. He is a Coopersville native." but I can't read further. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan -- Your uncertainty about the sources is valid. Items published by Visser's college, the school newspaper, and the conference in which his school is a dues-paying member are not considered "independent" and thus are not given weight in the GNG analysis. Note also that the GLIAC item states that the content originates with "FSU Athletics Communications Department" -- thus clearly not independent. Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough to meet GNG in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to establish notability per WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 16:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per all above, not notable per WP:GNG or any of the relevant athlete-specific criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 21 November 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 03:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Polaxis

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

This article on a augmented reality comic book does not meet the general notability criteria for WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search revealed little other than their own website, blog posts and a piece in a trade journal. Also fails WP:NCOMIC. Netherzone (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interesting but WP:TOOSOON, not enough impact to be in an encyclopedia yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 17 November 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 03:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Pinna

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this artist on line. She fails WP:NARTIST and the article reads like WP:PROMO. The images in the article from the Commons are highly suspect. All the major contributors have a singular interest in this article, or are anonymous, or have been cited for COI on other articles. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 21:38, 16 November 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 03:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hôtel Splendid

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

Fails WP:ORG. Unreferenced. A search for Hotel Splendid comes up with a lot of other hotels located elsewhere with the same name. A gnews search of ""Hotel Splendid" montreux" comes up with 2 hits. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 16 November 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 03:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Radisson Blu Hotel, Bremen

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

Fails WP:GNG. could not find significant coverage. Gnews reveals 2 hits, and a google search mainly comes up with directory listings. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fortress (2021 film)

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

Non-notable direct-to-video film, lacking significant coverage by independent sources (listings on comprehensives databases, and social media posts do not contribute to notability), per WP:GNG and WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 01:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confused. Variety Insight is no longer reliable?--Filmomusico (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable, from what I can see. But it is a database and probably does not contribute to notability. Pamzeis (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it is a cheapo direct to video film, it stars Bruce Wills and will get reviews once released. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23: Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It will likely get reviews, but notability also isn’t inherited. Like, I’m pretty sure Tim Curry was in The Story Keepers, and it still got deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It will be released in theaters on Friday, Dec 17, 2021 Not sure this should be deleted so soon just to pop up again. [23] Dam!ta (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lionsgate films#2020s or something like that per WP:CRYSTAL and nom. We can revert back to an article once the film gets reviews. Pamzeis (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as is, until at least Dec 17, the scheduled release date, when GNG sources will appear. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the only reason why this isn't super notable yet is because it hasn't been released yet. Heythereimaguy (talk) 00:38, 21 November 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 03:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhushan Wani

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

NO WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST, No WP:SIGCOV QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 00:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 00:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 00:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:: An article originally contributed by a blocked sock account, with minor adjustments since. This article consists of little more than a table of works, with a barely coherent introduction ("Bhushan Commercial applied art Diploma equivalent to degree of commercial applied art, (MFA) specialised in liquid photography"). The coverage that is available is predominantly about the subject's spouse but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Other than that there are routine listing name-checks which do no more than confirm the subject is going about his trade. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM cinematographer. Fails WP:BIO. What is notable about this person? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ARTIST. AnM2002 (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Masha Rasputina#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gorodskaya Shumasshedskaya

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

An empty article without sources and evidence.--Владимир Бежкрабчжян (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masha Rasputina. Even under its Cyrillic title the album is only visible in typical streaming and lyrics sites. Unless someone can dig up old hard copy Russian sources with reliable info, there seems to be nothing worth putting into a stand-alone album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Masha Rasputina. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 06:32, 20 November 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] Walker, Tim (February 21, 2018). "FINCH'S ANGER MANAGEMENT COURSE; Mad as Hell". The New European. Archived from the original on 2021-07-28.

[Leydon-2] Leydon, Joe (August 13, 2008). "Starship Troopers 3 Review". Variety.

[ign-budget-3] Scott Lowe (12 May 2012). "Starship Troopers 3: Marauder Blu-Ray Review - IGN". IGN.com.

[1]

[2]

[3]