Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 12	August 14 >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1901–1909

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Well-cited individual season articles have been created for every season of the Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football program. These decade articles no longer serve a useful purpose, and I don't think they would serve a useful purpose as redirects since they are implausible search terms. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Agreed that these no longer serve any useful purpose. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Patriarca12 (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Also, why hasn't this been closed yet? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion was never transcluded to a daily log page. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination per se. --Finngall ^talk 23:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete all seems non-controversial and a natural advancement to work. Good job! Should we leave re-directs for searching/etc?--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think anyone would ever search for "Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1910–1919" or the like. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably not, just thinking of outside websites that may have already indexed the page. No preference from me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the only way these articles would be appropriate is if there were not year-by-year articles, but as the nom said, that is no longer the case. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Golam Mukit ☆ (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry From

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPT Scare Band

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

Some coverage, but I don't think it passes GNG and they definitely don't meet MUSICBIO. Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article definitely needs to be cleaned up, but the band has more coverage than currently used in the article. They have a reliable staff-written bio at AllMusic: [1], and coverage of the "lost classic" variety at these sources of varying reliability: [2], [3], [4], [5]. They're an obscure cult act but with some cleanup there is enough for a basic article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think it barely passes WP:GNG due to articles by LouderSound, Decible Magazine, and Goldmine Magazine. Keeping in mind that WP:INTERVIEW sources are primary sources not secondary. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Doomsdayer that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debjani Chattopadhyay

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

Non-notable actor, completely unreferenced. BLPPROD rejected due to presence of IMDb as an external link. Google returns naught but name-drops in lists of cast members (string: "Debjani Chattopadhyay"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't qualify WP:NACTOR. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm finding nothing. —valereee (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I find HighKing's contribution the most persuasive from a policy standpoint, and I also note here that I discounted two contributions (one keep, one comment) on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beam Therapeutics

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

not yet notable -- no products, just raising money. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom rationale by DGG. Furthermore I don’t see any WP:ORGDEPTH and needless to say, WP:ORG isn’t satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other biotechnology companies with articles, such as CRISPR Therapeutics, who do not have approved drugs, but whose notability is inferred by sources. Uhooep (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as a publicly listed company with a $5 billion market cap, and with notable principles, I would assume it is notable. However, there seems to be almost no public information on this company; their S-1 is probably the best source for what the company actually is, and that's a primary source. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are lots of stubs on Wikipedia, what is the problem with including an article like this? Throwing articles like this out of Wikipedia is of no benefit. The fact that the company is worth billions of dollars and the article is building a references list of reliable sources should mean that notability is met. - Indefensible (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google reports "About 120,000" results mentioning the phrase "Beam Therapeutics"; Bing reports "432,000 Results", which IMHO should pass the notability test by itself. Not only is it publicly traded as User:力 points out, a NASDAQ.com article from a month ago names it one of the "5 Gene Editing Stocks To Watch Now" - a secondary source which appears to be independent (given the inclusion of 5 companies, rather than just shilling for one). They have announced human trials of three products (BEAM-101, BEAM-102, BEAM-201), which would seem to contradict the claim of "no products"? And while the article's cited Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News article mostly summarizes the S-1 and company PR, it appears to have additional color and quotes from interviewing a principal (which I found was excerpted from a longer article in the same publication which covers the academic research on their base editing technology and also mentions Beam Therapeutics in a dozen paragraphs). - 2604:2D80:D90E:7C00:18FB:6657:28FA:F00C (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. They are either mentions-in-passing standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia/Barnard Hillel

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

Lack of independent, significant coverage for this branch specifically Filetime (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable student organization. Just because it occurs at Columbia does not mean it is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep. There is no need for an AfD in order to merge an article. Since there is no opposition to a merge, either here or at the article talk page, I see no reason the proposer could not simply be WP:BOLD and carry out the merge without further discussion. SpinningSpark 10:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of university professors at Columbia University

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

Lack of significant, independent coverage. More appropriately a subsection of List of Columbia University people Filetime (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep The nomination advances an argument for a merge, not a deletion; this is the wrong venue. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Columbia University people, as nom suggests. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Columbia University people per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:List of Columbia University people, as I think should be required as part of the process whenever a merge is proposed in an AfD. To do otherwise would be to set up the possibility of conflicts where the consensus of AfD participants and the consensus of editors of the targeted article contradict each other. I have no opinion on whether it makes more sense to merge this into the larger list, or to split the larger list into smaller ones like this one according to Wikipedia:Summary style, but I agree with XOR'easter that deletion discussions are the wrong way to propose a merge and that outright deletion appears to be the wrong option. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies

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

Lack of independent, significant, and in-depth coverage (like most articles of this sort) Filetime (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I really, really tried to find reasons not to delete this, but I failed. This department doesn't seem any more notable than other humanities departments in North America, and academic departments neither inherit the university's notability nor do they generally meet the GNG. Considering the fact that this article is over a decade old and still only sourced by the subject's web site, I think it's fair to say that extensive coverage over time hasn't been established. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any information concerning this department is really about Columbia University. Notability, budgeting, power and decision-making are all done at the University level (in the United States, at least), or by the professors. Abductive (reasoning) 19:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would urge merging if there were any third party sources, but there are not. Individual departments are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Banks

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

Has some coverage, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel articles at Creative Boom, Creative Review, and It's Nice That establish notablity and thus this meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete /the first two items mentioned above are promotional interviews, where the designer is allowed to say whatever he cares to, and are therefore not indpendent sources. The third is one paragraph of text in an article showig designs from a number of different designers, and is therefore not substantial. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage. Agree with DGG. Peter303x (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University Department of Philosophy

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

Lack of independent, significant, and in-depth coverage (like most articles of this sort) Filetime (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual univeristy departments are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brave New World#Fordism and society. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

World State in Brave New World

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

This topic may be notable, but the article as it stands has no secondary sources, and goes into excessive detail. Propose to delete or redirect to Brave New World. Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ORish/WP:ALLPLOTish WP:ESSAY, singe footnote. No need to redirect as the topic is unlikely to be searchable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brave New World § Fordism and society. The subject is somewhat notable and is evidently a viable search term (averages about 160 views a day); plus WP:CHEAP.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Columbia University#Student life. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stand, Columbia

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

Does not meet notability standard:significant, in depth, coverage Filetime (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero in-depth coverage from independent sources. Could be mentioned on the university page, but no need for the lyrics. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Columbia University#Student life and merge a couple of sentences about the song there. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Columbia University#Student life. I find this idea by the previous voter to be convincing. Also, Wikipedia is not a database of song lyrics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Landing, Mississippi

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

Sources describe this as a river landing used to ship cotton. No sign of a community or other entity that meets GNG/GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 21:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 21:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus for deleting rather than redirecting given the lack of mention on the proposed target page. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Foundation

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

No third party sources except for a mention in a book. No documentation of individual awards, and nothing seems available except announcements of those awards. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Harvard University. Seems nothing more than an obscure office on campus, and the telling part -- aside from DGG's findings -- is that the Harvard main website has a large "diversity and inclusion" page on which the subject is not mentioned. Ravenswing 01:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability, and no mention on the main Harvard article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William I. Orr

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Passed previous AfD, but that was in 2006 - we have moved a long way since then in terms of what we accept. Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it seems like an important subject in the history of radio with his involvement in Amateur_radio_satellite#OSCAR_1 and the "Radio handbook" which is cited in the scientific literature I am willing to give this the benefit of the doubt. But I question whether there is enough WP:RS on this person to really justify an article. --hroest

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable in his field. I was able to find an online transcription of what appeared to be a printed obituary, and this clearly demonstrated his notability in the area of ham radio. I note that he also appears to have references in the print copies of ham radio magazines, but these do not seem to have been digitised. RomanSpa (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'd be more strong in my support if I could find published reviews for his books (likely in ham radio magazines). But I think the obituaries we have are enough to indicate his significance in the area and pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes boil down to WP:ITSIMPORTANT, without presenting any evidence of that in reliable sources. Randykitty (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beseh-Rahbari

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

Does not meet the criteria of an organization or place. Persia ☘ 08:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This district of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist representation in the affairs of Hajj and pilgrimage is entirely a known organization, especially by noting that it is related to the highest-ranking position in Iran --i.e. the supreme leader... It has sufficient cover in the media/internet, too. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage by media outlets that are affiliated with the government itself.--Persia ☘ 15:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ahwazi what is the difference between Beseh-Rahbari and Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization (Iran)? Are they related? They both are government organizations that manage pilgrimage in Iran, right?VR _talk 16:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beseh-Rahbari is an institution that represents the Supreme Leader in matters of Hajj and Pilgrimage, but "The Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization" is an "independent state agency" affiliated with the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance responsible for conducting and monitoring pilgrimage trips to Hajj, Umrah and pilgrimage to Iraq and Syria shrines; and they're two difference things. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm agree with @ Ali Ahwazi that article is related to the supreme leader of Iran. ZEP55 (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This organization is also one of the thousands of government organizations that are created for money laundering and other purposes.--Persia ☘ 07:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources with in-depth discussion have been offered in support of notability. In fact, no sources of any sort have been linked in this discussion. The keep rationales are invalid; being an official organisation/post is not sufficient for notability in Wikipedia terms. Neither is being associated with the supreme leader, that comes under WP:NOTINHERITED. SpinningSpark 11:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. It might be important, either as a government agency or as a criminal enterprise, but there's no evidence for either. If anything, it's just a travel agency for government employees of Iran to Mecca, G-d willing of course. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1960 New York mid-air collision. If the merge is attempted and there is a clear consensus at the target to reject mentioning his name, then this page may be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 as an implementation of the RfD consensus that we shouldn't redirect to a page which doesn't mention the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Baltz

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

This is mostly a procedural listing following Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 17#Stephen Baltz. Baltz was the sole survivor of the 1960 New York mid-air collision, but died from his injuries the following day. He is mentioned in the article, but not by name, per an apparently firm consensus against listing such survivors of air disasters. Given this unclear connection, the redirect came up at RfD. I don't necessarily favor deletion; I just oppose reverting this to an undiscussed redirect. BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the RfD participants 108.41.60.144, Thryduulf, WilliamJE, Oiyarbepsy, Joseph2302, PEIsquirrel, Tavix. Jay ^(Talk) 09:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or merge with a mention of Baltz to 1960 New York mid-air collision, per Ivanvector in the RfD (coverage in a major publication 40+ years after the incident ([6]) and the existence of a memorial plaque ([7]) demonstrate notability). The sources make clear that there is still interest in him, so this information needs to exist somewhere. I'm fine with keeping a separate article if that's what it takes to satisfy having him named in the collision article, otherwise I lean more towards a merge (keeping WP:1E in mind). -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without a merge. This is a classic case of a person known only for a single event, who has no other claim to notability. It is impossible to write an article on this person without the additional context of the plane crash. That said, the content in this article is excessively detailed for an article on the plane crash. Now, while the article doesn't currently give his name, I think that is acceptable in this case, as long as the redirect points to the section that describes him as the lone "survivor" (which I put in quotes because dying the next day instead of at the scene does not make someone a survivor). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is better than a non-section redirect, since readers will probably be able to put two and two together. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If readers have to "put two and two together" to get information, then we're not doing our job as an encyclopedia. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - in the RfD a point was raised about a manual of style forbidding mentioning non-notable victims of aviation accidents. Baltz is notable in that context, as evidenced by ongoing coverage half a century later (per Tavix, and per my comments in the RfD), and he should be mentioned there. I don't see any reason for there to be a separate article, as Baltz's notability cannot be separated from the accident. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pasco County Schools. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gulfside Elementary School

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

An attempted merge was reverted because "schools are exempt." This is a non-notable elementary school. User:Namiba 19:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pasco County Schools as no evidence of notability. Pennsy22 please read WP:NSCHOOLS, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:SCHOOLRFC. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pasco County Schools. While elementary schools are exempt from A7 speedy deletion, they certainly aren't exempt from our notability guidelines. There's nothing here that would constitute significant coverage sufficient to meet the GNG; a redirect is cheap and a reasonable alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to being notable about this elementary school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Number 1, Alabama

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

Could not find any evidence of a community with this name. Does not appear on topos until the 2011 edition, likely based on GNIS which in turn cites a 1980 county street map. Fails GNG and GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 19:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing that verifies what this is/was. Completely unidentifiable. Hog Farm _Talk 21:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I strolled Google (books and newspapers) for even passing mentions, found nothing. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuiertyd

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

This programming block fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable dub block of Dutch and Turkish soaps. Article creator Insidus (talk · contribs) has a talk page full of warnings about creating articles like this, and they're getting tiresome to deal with; their few talk page contribs show WP:CIR issues. Nate • (chatter) 03:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main Tere Liye

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep expanded, sources added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sourced reasonably -- DaxServer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 18:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now includes good references. And an important point: This is a Hindi-language film. A proper WP:BEFORE would include a search for the title using Hindi script. This principle applies for any topic where the bulk of the references are likely to be in a language written in a script other than the English alphabet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. As per comments below, nominator has withdrawn. No other editors have voted in favour of deletion. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nishana (1980 film)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, sources exist, some added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more sources added. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per improvements made since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It looks much better now.--Filmomusico (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well developed, with sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sourced reasonably -- DaxServer (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 18:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, who will remove the AfD tag?--Filmomusico (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmomusico - if you wish to state that you are withdrawing, I or another uninvolved editor can speedy close the AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{@Spiderone: Yes. I'm more then pleased to withdraw the nomination. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchi Kutumbam

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added two full length reviews from Visalaandhra and Andhra Prabha. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now passes WP:NFILM -- DaxServer (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting also that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Bazaar

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely notable, looks like a random choice of deletion - this article has plenty of sources online. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The commenter confuses it with Kala Bazar, a 1960 film, which, in fact, does have significant coverage, but not this one. Not a random choice either.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not presume to speak on my behalf or know for sure what I was referring to. This film is exactly the film I was talking about. As a matter of fact, I've added several sources on the article. A very random choice, indeed. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more sources added; article cleaned up. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since you added sources, I apologize for speaking on your behalf. :) Will wait patiently for the discussion to close.--Filmomusico (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable film.† Encyclopædius 18:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks notable. Withdrawing my nomination. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Southeast Missouri State University. Daniel (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christene Merick

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

Fails WP:BIO. One big donation isn't enough to establish notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Southeast Missouri State University: A merger into a new home seems to be the best place for this article. While it is not notable as a standalone article, it would be a fine paragraph in Southeast Missouri State University. Curbon7 (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested is clearly the right move. Athel cb (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why the merge, for a completely routine and normal event at American universities. I don't see sufficient referencing for a merge. scope_creep^Talk 13:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ScopeCreep. Mccapra (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this one was a bit bigger than a routine event, at least for Southeast Missouri State Uni; I'd say merge is quite sensible, as it's clearly a big event in the uni's history, and the current article is as much about Mr Merick as Mrs Merick; even the details of their early life could easily sit in the Uni's article as the Uni and the Mericks share an origin in school-teaching. They are a merge made in heaven. Elemimele (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Curbon7. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Fox Glacier FU-24 crash

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

Tragic but fails WP:AIRCRASH. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may fail to meet the essay of WP:AIRCRASH, but WP:GNG is easily met, as per the previous AfD discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does not fail WP:AIRCRASH, which states that an aviation accident is notable if "The accident resulted in a significant change to the aircraft design or aviation operations, including changes to national or company procedures, regulations or issuance of an Airworthiness Directive (or the equivalent to an AD in the case of non-certified aircraft)." The article states that "The final report was released in May 2012. It recommended tightened regulation of centre-of-gravity calculations, change of use modifications and parachute pilot monitoring." - ZLEA _T\^C 18:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article passes WP:EVENT as it did result in permanent changes in procedures. - Ahunt (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. This is not just an article about a plane crash, it is an article about a botched investigation by the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission that initially came up with a fairly flimsy and unbelievable cause of the crash, having botched the investigation, allowing key parts of the plane wreckage to be buried a mere three days after the accident. After public protests and pressure, the commission admitted that it had mishandled the investigation, and that the conclusions in the original accident report were unlikely to have caused the accident. The scandal resulted in more than a million dollars of new funding and additional investigators added to the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission. Sadly, this information was removed from the article shortly before it was nominated for deletion. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to fairly easily meet WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a very big deal when it happened, considering it claimed nine lives which is fairly significant for airtime disasters that happened in New Zealand. Passes WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the botched investigation pushes this one high up the notability scale. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:SNOWBALL as it meets WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 00:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination also. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poola Rangadu

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

PROD removed because "Declined g11", but it have no other sources other then external links which are used as sources..--Filmomusico (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I declined the G11. There was no PROD. The movie looks notable enough, although the Plot section is gibberish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bbb23: We need at least two reliable sources to make it worthwhile of inclusion. Reliable sources for a Bollywood films are: The Hindu, The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, and Bollywood Hungama. I see non of those sources listing specifically this film or even mentioning it. A review from those publications would be enough, I just don't see it. Maybe there are reviews in Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, or Hindi, but I know none of those tongues.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this one of those rules you've made up?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't qualify WP:NFILM. I won't even count Bollywood Hungama as a good enough source for films. But I am surprised to find no reviews despite having a strong notable casting. Maybe reviews exists in other languages. But we can't assume they do and they must be presented for this page to be included at Wikipedia. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The Indian Express is also good. @Bbb23: No. This was something that was stated by a debate participant in this project for the July 13 nomination of one of the articles. I should have provided a source and quote it. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFO. Mullapudi Venkata Ramana won Andhra Pradesh state-presented Nandi Award for Best Story Writer for the film.^[1] Also added a full-length review from Zamin Ryot.^[2] -- Ab207 (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "నంది అవార్డు విజేతల పరంపర (1964–2008)" [A series of Nandi Award Winners (1964–2008)] (PDF). Information & Public Relations of Andhra Pradesh. Retrieved 21 August 2020.(in Telugu)
^ Gopalrao, Griddaluru (1 December 1967). "అభిప్రాయం: పూల రంగడు" [Opinion: Poola Rangadu] (PDF). Zamin Ryot (in Telugu). p. 9.

Keep: passes WP:NFILM per WP:NFO -- DaxServer (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now it does. Withdrawing my nomination then. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well developed, and has enough sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amaayakuraalu

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangaru Gaajulu

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The film has won the Nandi Award for Best Feature Film by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 1968. It is definitely notable film. Kindly keep it.--Rajasekhar1961 18:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source that says that he did?--Filmomusico (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added the reference at the Award section. Link: https://ipr.ap.nic.in/New_Links/Film.pdf. Unfortunately it is in Telugu.--Rajasekhar1961 05:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFO. The film is an award winner. Can verify in page no. 13 of the above link. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: now passes WP:NFO -- DaxServer (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Datta Putrudu

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bangaru Babu (1973 film)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Ramesh

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Premalu Pellillu

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added two full-length reviews from Telugu newspapers, Zamin Zyot and Andhra Jyothi. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NFO -- DaxServer (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchi Kutumbam (1989 film)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as nothing was found in a WP:BEFORE except film database sites, videos, and promo material.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of a large set of similar AfDs on Indian films by this nominator, none of which were transcluded to a daily log. Fixing now--I am neutral on the nominations themselves. --Finngall ^talk 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naelah Alshorbaji

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

PRODed by Bri.public: "Fails to meet WP:BLP1E policy; every source relates to Miss Philippines Earth 2021."

Deproded by the author. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This model will be added some more reliable sources. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources from different independent sources, the context is not important. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes general notability guidelines. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it passes the GNG according to User:FormalDude.----Rdp060707|talk 07:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eureka (American TV series)#Soundtrack. Content is already merged to the target article. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka (soundtrack)

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

Does not satisfy WP:NALBUM or GNG. – DarkGlow • 14:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eureka (American TV series)#Original soundtrack. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eureka (American TV series)#Original soundtrack per the above comment/argument. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aniela Allotey

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

Borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a GNG fail. A before search predominantly search turns up only hits in primary sources and uner generated sources, see here and and here and in mere announcements or mention her in passing see here. Hence ]]WP:SIGCOV]] is definitely not met.. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete as TooSoon; I think @Celestina is right about sources. All I can find (apart from her degree and social-media sites) are copious nearly-identical announcements that she's to become the host of a show (from March this year; to my mind, these count as a single announcement as they probably all stem from the same press release). She may prove notable when she's been in post for a bit, or later in her career, if more people write about what she does, but it hasn't happened yet. Elemimele (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Butcher Hollow P-47 Thunderbolt Crash

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

Completely non-notable event that lacks reliable sourcing failing WP:BASIC. Military planes crash regularly and there is absolutely nothing notable about this non-fatality crash. One of a number of non-notable pages regarding Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User. All detail already covered on Harry Stewart, Jr.. Mztourist (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Intothat darkness 14:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It didn't bean Loretta Lynn or any of her relatives on the noggin, otherwise she would truly have been a Blue Kentucky Girl who would have written a nasty Dear Uncle Sam letter, so what's the big deal? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable anecdote full of trivia. Single-seat military plane crashes are an almost daily occurrence and very rarely notable enough for a stand-alone article. A mention in Stewart's biography is probably plenty. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-fatal aircraft crashes a common occurrence at the time, so this one is hardly notable. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Pinder

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

No evidence of notability. All sources appear to be primary or tangential. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; a search for sources returns only routine coverage.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geert R. A. Kliphuis

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

No WP:SIGCOV on his career to determine notability; no chart information for his music to satisfy WP:NSINGER; does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NAUTHOR either. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I'm struggling to find anything about him at all. Unless I'm really bad at Google searches (which is quite possible) it's going to be a real stretch to establish any notability whatsoever. The book "Dutch guitarists" which pops up in Google as available from Amazon has a disclaimer that it is made up of Wikipedia articles; all the other things I found were WP articles or mirrors of them; he seems to have called himself Jay Conrad when writing lyrics for an album 'Steeltown girls', in which he hasn't done us any favours as a Google search for 'Jay Conrad' turns up mostly Jay Conrad Levinson (someone else). Rarely has a potentially-notable person managed to remain so firmly below Google's radar. Can anyone find anything Dutch? Elemimele (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elemimele, I could find a Dutch-language column that Kliphuis wrote for the distinguished NRC Handelsblad. I have added it as a reference, unformatted as this this article most likely will go do the drain. As far as I can tell, Kliphuis made a decent contribution to several media products and services, still fails the WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. WP:NOTINHERETED also applies to this article in its current state. gidonb (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Creek, Florida

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

Another seemingly non-existent community with very little references. There is nothing showing a community on topos or aerials, just empty land. There are only two relevant Newspaper pings- a 2011 obituary that notes a woman was born in Cow Creek, FL in 1914, and a Discovery Channel special that visited a ranch in Cow Creek in 1968 (that I can't make out on period aerials). Only relevant Google Books result is a listing for that same Discovery special. Additionally, on topos, "Cow Creek" is not marked as separate from the actual creek Cow Creek that runs alongside it until 2012, which, funnily, is a year after this Wikipedia article was made... Pokemonprime (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Pokemonprime (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Pokemonprime (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Pokemonprime (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is not enough in-depth coverage to satisfy our policies regarding notability. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nearly every entry on Newspaper Archive is for a Cow Creek Ranch. There is a 1917 article referencing a sawmill siding near Cow Creek, and a 1909 reference to a Cow Creek School, but I am pulling up nothing else. Google Maps shows what looks to be four houses or a ranch. This is not enough to write an article. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find the school and the sawmill siding, as well as a few references to moonshine raids in the "Cow Creek District". I don't there's enough here to really support an article. Hog Farm _Talk 16:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article includes a photo of a road leading to Cow Creek. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh King (television producer)

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

Does not have multiple significant production roles and does not satisfy WP:BASIC. No WP:SIGCOV on his career. – DarkGlow • 11:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT, I couldn't find sufficient evidence of notability or of significant roles. Suonii180 (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has no indepdent, reliable sources, which are articles need to be justified, espeically when they are biographies of living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Wales

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to publisher, but not mentioned in that article. Also a potentially ambiguous term - could just as well be redirected to the Wales page's sectino covering modern history. Boleyn (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. Quite an old article and clearly unacceptable in its present form but could possibly be rescued. Deb (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to draft~~. Concur with Deb Sheijiashaojun (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC) Later convinced by comments below, so Delete. 23:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been around since 2009 and I don't see why moving it to draft would suddenly motivate editors to go out looking for sources. As the nom mentions, the title is an ambiguous search term and not surprisingly a Google search gives lots of hits but nothing about this journal. MIAR does not list any database including this journal. I also failed to find a current homepage for the journal. It's not on the website of its publisher (University of Wales Press) nor can I find a website for the "Board of Celtic Studies", even though the Welsh National Library says that it is still published (but only lists issues until 2000). As I cannot even verify that the journal still exists, I see no other option than deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an apparently-defunct minor journal (last issue I can find 2014 [8]) with no sourced evidence of greater significance or in-depth coverage. I don't see the point in moving to draft; that's just a way of saying "delete by the back door in six months". If you want to fix it up so that it can be saved from deletion, do it now, don't just hope that someone else might find the interest to rescue it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seann Branchfield

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NMUSICIAN. No charting information or significant coverage on their career. – DarkGlow • 11:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, exists, but I couldn't find that it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capra (band)

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

This has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. It has 2 notable members, but only one seems to be notable as a musician, so I don't think it meets this part of WP:NBAND, or meet WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; they do not meet NBAND's criteria. – DarkGlow • 11:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Equipment

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Only sources are to primary sources. – DarkGlow • 11:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 11:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails NCORP. Everything on Google appears to be trivial coverage or retailers marketing equipment manufactured by the company. Pahunkat (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bellerue

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

Some coverage, but not the level or level of significance to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is not substantial enough to meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Ayral

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

Some coverage but I couldn't find enough to show he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. It doesn't have a Turkish article, but has in two other languages, neither of which have convincing evidence of notability. I may be missing something due to language. Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; roles seem to be bit parts and no SIGCOV to satisfy notability. – DarkGlow • 11:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NACTOR and SIGCOV. I found a passing mention here about him directing Bücür Cadı (tr), but that's it. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I PRODded it in December. Likely missed the dePROD or I'd have AfDed myself. Star Mississippi 23:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is notable and references prove it, I would recreate article if it was deleted as there are enough sources and references. Nine individual sources are referenced. BookwormbilgeliK (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

user:BookwormbilgeliK, it isn't acceptable to just unilaterally recreate if articles are deleted at AfD. You give your opinion here, and accept the general consensus, even if you disagree with it. Boleyn (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NACTOR. — 07 ● 💬 17:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortbread House of Edinburgh

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

Sources are not reliable or significant. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable company. Article was supported by low quality PR and paid sources, until these were removed by the creator in reaction to a PROD notice. Now supported by a passing mention in a trivial/PR publication, and a blog post. The whole thing is a COI/Paid creation by a throwaway account. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Chelsea Market Basket blog, which showcases connected firms (see the use of "our" on the page) is not a WP:RS. The article creator's removal of text before deleting the PROD notice included some other references, such as the Scottish Field summary of the Great Taste awards; the firm gained several awards but there were around 300 such awards and I note it is a paid-for self-submission award ([9]). These fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find brief coverage such as this complaint regarding food description protection in 2015 but that is not coverage about this firm. Overall, I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not enough news to justify notability. Webmaster862 (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. I feel this food item probably is notable, as it wouldn't be carried by so many online retailers if it weren't. But there's just very little coverage outside of the local area, and many are bare mentions or redlink media. —valereee (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Benson (announcer)

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

The article currently lacks sources which demonstrate significant coverage of the subject. A WP:BEFORE search surprisingly yielded nothing promising. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, for an article that started life in 2004, it certainly has a paucity of references. AND, the references given do not establish any notability for WP:NJOURNALIST nor entertainer, which he was, basically. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No viable claims for deletion. (non-admin closure) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Randolph

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

Extreme lack of Notability to the point where not even a single reputable source is available to verify the age or the birthday of the living person. Most cited sources are WP:PSEUDO and highly WP:NOTRELIABLE. Jaconsarto (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clearly notable. The mention of WP:NOTRELIABLE is just ridiculous (sources include Inverse, USA Today, Bleeding Cool, the Austin Chronicle, the Comics Bulletin, etc.), and per WP:PSEUDO, while some of the sources merely mention her, others are articles about her. If we deleted pages just because we didn't have a source for someone's birthdate, we'd be deleting hundreds of pages each day of prominent actors. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article already overcame one nomination for deletion many years ago when it had far fewer references. Significant news sources like The Hindustan Times, New York Post, Vanity Fair, Yahoo! Movies, and AV Club have used her for legitimate entertainment industry information. Several local American news channels have regularly had her on air for her movie industry knowledge. She is the most-watched female film critic and reporter on Youtube. If people like Chris Stuckmann, Andy Signore, and Lindsay Ellis qualify for a Wikipedia entry, Grace Randolph certainly does. AWildAppeared (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I manually removed India, Indonesia, and Philippines for which there is no consensus to delete, I am deleting the rest. I will be happy to recreate individual articles on case-by-case basis, though. Tone 08:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

France at major beauty pageants

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

87 more articles

At the advice of Dream Focus (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark at major beauty pageants, there is no real point in nominating these articles in batches anymore — the contents are pretty much identical (side-by-side presentation of data on participants at the Big Four international beauty pageants, even with identical formatting and all) consensus is pretty much rock solid for deleting them as WP:IINFO and WP:SYNTH, and due to the User:Asartea/Pageants AFD, 129 countries and territories will be covered by G4 should they get recreated. So goes 88 more articles as presented here. Big WP:AWBREQ excercise coming up. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

78 delsorts

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Adding the following 3 articles and their delsorts:

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. These are not articles in the sense that a human being wrote them: they could perfectly well be "written" by a computer program, and maybe they were. Athel cb (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment A good number of these articles were human-written years ago, then had this ghastly grid pasted onto them. It may be best to look at each one individually to see if they worked in a previous form rather then yet another kitchen-sink pageant nom like this. It really feels like we have a hostility to them that's been over-trebled by a minority of editors who could do better to fix things and help editors rather than continuing to micro-manage WP:PAGEANTS (and a note to noms; start notifying that project of pageant-related deletion discussions. I don't care about its semi-active state. It's the proper and polite thing to do. I'll do it this time, but just del-sorting is not enough). Nate • (chatter) 08:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If by "ghastly grid" you mean the table of years and competitors, it was already there on 1st April 2014 when the France page was created. It may be worth noting the editor who created it is now blocked indefinitely for suspected sockpuppetry. The same editor created a great many other beauty-related articles, such as Miss Honduras. Athel cb (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~You forgot to put the AFD notice on these "87 more articles". Dream Focus 12:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)~~ fixed[reply]

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

Delete all, not encyclopedic.--Hippeus (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:FANCRUFT; since that is exactly what those pages are. Also Not really relevant since WP:DINC, but nvm; urgh; some people just have no taste at all as far as aesthetics are concerned... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sheer amount of data is striking, should be an external database or private wiki. Unfortunate, someone(s) put a lot of effort into it. Would like to see the pages recoverable should anyone in the future choose to move it elsewhere. -- GreenC 15:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user doing this was blocked for sockpuppets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive Anyone can use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Export and https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Import Dream Focus 17:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just did it. Everything in the category I did port over fast and easy. https://list.fandom.com/wiki/Special:Log/import list them all. Dream Focus 17:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete alll. There is waste of time to handle them individually. If someone wants to undelete any of them individually, citing serious reasons, then let the ball be on their side. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all - as in other Afd. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Per the last AfD and everything stated above. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 19:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all considering the consensus was already well in favour to remove the first few alphabetic bundles. Ajf773 (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As per nom in their current state as WP:TNT, though If anyone wants to salvage a country or two with proper articles (ex. describe the selection process, or notable events that only concern the country itself), I'd say let them have a go at it. Also noting that Template:Countries at major beauty pageants will need to be TfD as well. Jumpytoo Talk 03:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC

Dushan is right in that a few of these articles do have some depth to them. I only initially checked the big western countries and I assumed the rest were similar. I skimmed through every article and these 3 have enough that at least they should be sent individually, if not outright kept:

There might be a few more that I missed (I only focused on the part above the table), but other than those 3, delete the rest. Jumpytoo Talk 21:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:TNT. As people do watch and follow this kind of talent shows, I would not be against a well-balanced and written country series. The current articles, however, are really bad so we're better off with all gone. gidonb (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. blablabla WP:INDISCRIMINATE blablabla WP:LISTN. JBchrch talk 21:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think we would delete the Indonesia_at_major_beauty_pageants page if it was not part of a mass deletion. The list could be deleted from this article and it would still stand. I only looked at three pages, has anyone looked at all 87, are we deleting pages without looking at them. Don't mistake me for someone who cares, but first they came for the pageant lists and next they will be after earthquake lists, I didn't want to say nothing. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. SBKSPP (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is no use of making these kind of article on Wikipedia. Lara (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles with no in-depth coverage, and Keep the few as per Dushan and Jumpytoo (Indonesia, India, Philippines). Not a pageant fan myself but it would be easy to create an article that would pass WP:GNG in countries where these pageants are taken seriously (e.g. Philippines).Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with the others that have singled out India, Philippines and Indonesia as ones that should not be deleted as part of this AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - upon reviewing all the articles in question, I concur to Keep India, Philippines and Indonesia; these articles contain third party reliable sources and should not be deleted as part of this AfD.---Richie Campbell (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Philippines at major beauty pageants. Beauty pageants in the Philippines is just like the Olympics or Superbowl according to the articles indicated below. If you only look closely at the article, Philippines at major beauty pageants or search for reliable sources online, you'll find a plethora of third party reliable sources to support and to improve the article. Below are just some examples and you can search for more through google:

---Richie Campbell (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All and create more similar articles. These articles are basically a list of womens, almost all of whom will qualify for WP:BIO if sufficinet research is done using local media. Having a historic record of people who took part in world wide compitition is useful not only for now, but for future generations. Also these articles will be a good starting point for researchers. Having something is better than nothing. Also respect the authours and their contribution who created those articles. nirmal (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to create even more articles that violate WP:NOT? Please can you tell me which Wikipedia inclusion guideline Gibraltar at major beauty pageants meets? Also WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST and WP:IWORKEDSOHARD are classic examples of arguments to avoid at AfD. It is not Wikipedia's place to be a starting point for researchers, we should only be publishing research that has already been done by established people in the field. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for India, Philippines and Indonesia per arguments by Richie Campbell et al. above. I concur with Dushan's funny but legitimate concern that pages are arguably being deleted without being reviewed. Therefore, I abstain about the 84 other articles.Koikefan (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep India, Indonesia and Phillipines, don't know about the rest. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 09:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ang Dalawang Ikaw. The basic question here is not one of notability, but of whether we need one large article, or an article and a list. With respect to this question, the argument that there isn't enough content to necessitate a split is persuasive, and has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ang Dalawang Ikaw episodes

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

Poorly referenced TheHotwiki (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ang Dalawang Ikaw. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 09:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because the list is notable for Ang Dalawang Ikaw due to lack of notability. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What?TheHotwiki (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking AnsrieJames9's second vote and restoring the first vote he erased. You can comment anytime you want, but you can vote only once. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hueman1. NavjotSR (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ang Dalawang Ikaw since the program just recently premiere, plus making an article for the program's episode list is WP:TOOSOON. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Episode lists are standard conventions and will make the main article too messy as it develops. matt91486 (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ang Dalawang Ikaw. Tessaracter (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: The show will be on its 9th week and is still ongoing. Therefore, it's not WP:TOOSOON to have an episode list since it's created days after the show began. And regarding ratings and the likes, there is no deadline in finding reliable sources. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: When do we expect to see these reliable sources? The article has been proposed for deletion for days and nothing has been done to the article especially with reliable references. TheHotwiki (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotwiki, I just added one. Given that these sources are hard to find or occasionally posted, anyone (even I) can add any of them by the following days or weeks. It's no big deal at all. Like I said, there is no deadline. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: If you can't find enough sources and then you shouldn't have made a separate article for episodes. Ang Dalawang Ikaw isn't a big article to begin with.TheHotwiki (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hotwiki, there's really nothing wrong with creating a separate article for a list of episodes days after a certain series was premiered. Shows like this don't usually have a fixed duration. I don't mind if it's tagged as a stub. Anyone like me can add some more by the following days or weeks if they have found some. I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also nothing wrong by merging to another article, as the article for The Dalawang Ikaw isn't big.TheHotwiki (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The episode list since it's created and there is no deadline to find reliable sources. AnsrieJames9 (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the said article per nomination.----Rdp060707|talk 10:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Astig's and Matt's argument. I see nothing wrong with having an article for an episode list of every drama/anthology series. Ang Dalawang Ikaw has been on air for many weeks. The title of every episode can be seen on GMA's social media accounts, but finding reliable sources for the ratings can be much of a challenge. I agree with them that there's no WP:DEADLINE since anyone can add them in the following weeks. 2 sources about the program and at least 1 source for the rating of a certain episode (usually the pilot episode) is good enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matt's argument. These lists are standard and I see no way how merging would not result in a cluttered article. I would also like to reiterate Astig's point that there is no deadline. Koikefan (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists have to be well sourced which List of Ang Dalawang Ikaw episodes isn't. It is also borderline Wikipedia:Fancruft. Also Ang Dalawang Ikaw is not a big article to warrant a separate episode list article. Also the episode list article was made before the series aired more than five episodes. I hope editors will read Wikipedia:Article size before making another list of episodes article. TheHotwiki (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of it being started when there were 5 episodes, there are very clearly more than 5 episodes as of now. matt91486 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's no WP:DEADLINE. This is not bordering on fancruft, as it it's not about an obscure or esoteric part of the show, it's about its episodes. By that logic, every single episode list of an underseen Filipino television show is fancruft. The relevant guideline here is WP:Merging which states that merges are to be avoided if 1. The resulting article would be too long or "clunky" (I think that's the case here), 2. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles (I think that's the case here) and 3. The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short (I think that's the case here). Koikefan (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Ang Dalawang Ikaw and List of Ang Dalawang Ikaw episodes aren't long articles. An example of a long article is COVID-19 pandemic.TheHotwiki (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noruwa Agho

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

Was deleted through prod last year, same issues still apply, Routine sports coverage, not enough in-depth to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References do not give notabilty to this person for his work nor sport. Fails GNG and NSPORT. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with the sources in the article, such as these from The New York Times and The Star Ledger. Alvaldi (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, meaning that everything in the news doesn't automatically get Wikipedia articles when there is actually a lack of real achievements. Geschichte (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite multiple relists, participants do no seem to agree on whether the sources covering this group are sufficient to establish notability. Although there are two independent sources, it is not clear whether they satisfy WP:AUD or if they are too limited in audience (one being local and the other a specialized newsletter). RL0919 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG and not worth the WP:ATD of a merge/redirect to University of Nottingham Students' Union. Boleyn (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some WP:RS, including Ringing World and several articles from Nottingham Evening Post (AGF) that would qualify notability under WP:GNG. However, the preponderance of the text is woefully bereft of references. If there are not independent, reliable, secondary sources to support at least each paragraph, as tagged now, the article needs to be trimmed back to what is reliably sourced, not deleted entirely. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite as suggested above using the aforementioned reliable sources such as Ringing World and Nottingham Evening Post, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly needs a massive rewrite that should remove a lot off non-wikipedian material as well as adding sources. I am inclined to suggest Delete, but allow a new article to be created using reliable sources and proper Wikipedian language. --Bduke (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the comments below, I now move to Keep. --Bduke (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be general consensus that the subject is notable. Without a WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP issue, I don't see any reason why we should blow it up and lose the article history. Replace the bad writing with good writing, by all means. But bad writing is a fixable problem. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN student society. The fact that it is well verified does not make it notable. It would be a rare student society that was WP notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources fall short of the provision about significant coverage, owing to the fringe status of outlets such as Ringing World or local newspapers. Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for sources myself, and found nothing that's both substantive and reliable. Verifiability isn't enough; coverage also needs to cover the topic in minimal detail, and I see no evidence of that. Furthermore, I don't see how the Ringing World source contributes toward notability; as its own article documents, it has fairly trivial circulation. The other local sources are also questionable in this respect. At the very least, this needs to be turned into a stub. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in the references list as the publication of the Central Council of Church Bell Ringers. Niche, certainly, but I can't see why it wouldn't be considered a reliable source for our purposes here. It doesn't seem to be connected to this subject in a way that would make it not independent. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't only a question of reliability, but also of what sort of audience the source is reaching. Coverage in a magazine with very little circulation does not tell us that the subject of that coverage is very significant. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. "Nottingham Evening Post" is clearly local, and there's no indication what "Ringing World" even is and why it is supposed to be a reliable source. Sandstein 15:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We do have The Ringing World as a subsection of another article, and also we are enjoined to assume good faith when a source is not available online and may have only have a weekly circulation of 2,627. To the best of my knowledge, GNG and NORG criteria do not include that a source must be mainstream rather than "fringe". This article does appear to meet WP:AUD, as The Ringing World does appear to have a national circulation of bellringers across the UK, and its 100th anniversary celebration in 2011 included a a service at Westminster Abbey. As I said above, all of the unreferenced text should be cut, but not the whole article. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have edited out the unreferenced statements, leaving text that still needs some editing. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Ringing World does have a website with issues back to 2001 behind registration and a paywall, and issues farther back are available for purchase on a DVD. The 2006 issue cited in the article is advertised here. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not clear why the available sources, namely Ringing World and Nottingham Evening Post are sufficient to meet the GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beer mile with selective merging. The proposed merge/redirect topic with selecting merging of the cited paragraph is the only consensus reached. No consensus to outright delete or keep the article as-is. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long-distance race involving alcohol

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

An article that is searching for a reason to exist. Only one race in which drinking-while-running is involved is in the article, and that has its own article already. The entire first paragraph is original research by a creative editor. This is not a topic mentioned by reliable sources. Argles Barkley (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Beer mile, which does have enough coverage as a topic (though that article needs cleanup). One or two sentences mentioning similar races over longer distances are called for there. The original research should not be merged. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge per @力. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Boy

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

I don't think this article about a book series meets WP:NBOOK. In carrying out WP:BEFORE I found and added an interview with the author, but I still think this is too thin. Tacyarg (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, first, the books (including e-versions) in this series are still held in around 200 libraries (Ancient Fire, Dragon Sword, Trail of Bones, City of Ruins), second, there are enough reviews of a couple of them to meet WP:NBOOK ie. multiple reviews, entitling them to standalone articles; Ancient Fire - by Publishers Weekly here, Booklist here, School Library Journal here; City of Ruins by School Library Journal, and Horn Book here, and the Jewish Book Council here, alternatively, these reviews could be used to flesh out this series article. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep the sources listed above seem like more than enough for notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Batt, Virginia

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

Topos show a rural crossroads with basically nothing there. Searching is surprisingly hard due to this being a fairly common surname in Va., and due to a lot of old newspapers sources using "batt." as an abbreviation for battery. From what I can turn up, the 4th-class postmaster was replaced in 1901, and I found a source from 1904 calling it a "post village", but I'm not sure that that term has a set meaning. If anyone can find some significant coverage, that would be appreciated, but I found nothing besides the two passing mentions about postal stuff. Hog Farm _Talk 04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It would be impossible to write an article on a location that has not received any in-depth coverage. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fortymile Bend, Florida

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

The name is self explanatory: It's just a bend on the Tamiami Trail that's used as a landmark. BEFORE search turned up no signs of a community; fails GEOLAND and GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, ya stole my thunder lol, I was nominating this literally right now. Curbon7 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So as I was saying before I was interrupted (I'm joking lol); this community is from the same mass-produced and mostly non-notable set created by a now-blocked user. A Google search returns literally nothing; Newspapers.com has a number of articles from the '50s about some oil derricks that used to be in the area, but otherwise that's it. Fails both WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google map link, by the way. Also, don't be confused by all those houses, that's actually the Miccosukee Indian Reservation, not Fortymile Bend. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Radwan

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

This article doesn't make the case for its own existence. The subject is noted as having been published and quoted in major media, but not themselves being the subject of reporting by that media. A Google News search seems to confirm this. The subject is quoted in snippets in articles that are about other things. BD2412 T 02:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The person is mentioned in numerous reliable sources in the US including CNBC, The Financial Times, WSJ, etc. These are high profile sources where he is being quoted on the subject as an expert. I note that he is not the main subject of any of these articles and this page needs substantial improvement. My vote is to keep since as per WP:GNG, these qualify as reliable sources, there are 5+ of them, and to qualify for significant coverage the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." CosmicNotes (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think BD2412 is correct here. My searches find nothing that goes beyond the sort of trivial mentions that don't count toward the GNG; interviewing and being interviewed don't move the notability needle. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 02:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Snow Buildings

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a promotional writeup than anything, and I concur that it does not WP:NBAND or WP:GNG.TH1980 (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as they do have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as this AllMusic staff written bio here and two staff written album reviews there, also coverage in Pitchfork here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Album Of The Year lists 6 critic reviews for them, including Sputnikmusic,[10][11][12] and Mojo,[13]. I also found others like Brainwashed,[14] Tiny Mix Tapes,[15] Impose,[16] and Uncut,[17] among others. Whoever made the page just didn't include them for some reason, maybe they didn't know it was necessary. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per souces provided by BuySomeApples and Atlantic306. Passes WP:NBAND. These sources should be added to the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abrigael Bohórquez

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

Article is supported by a single offline source. I was unable to locate any other sources in a WP:BEFORE search. Not clear that the subject meets any criteria at WP:SIGCOV, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:NACADEMIC, or WP:ANYBIO. 4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current article title is a typographical error. His name was Abigael Bohórquez and here is evidence of his notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's probably why my search didn't turn up anything. Cullen328 You might consider moving the article and adding that source as well. I'll take some time later today to search for sources under the correct spelling. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4

Done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I'm going to withdraw the nomination, because under the correct spelling there are plenty of quality sources available.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, name corrected and notable.TotallyAbrupt (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magomed Ismailov

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Subject fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under tier one promotion and fails GNG as info of the fights is merely routine report. Cassiopeia talk 02:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 02:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 02:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 02:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not notable as an MMA fighter since he has no top tier MMA fights. I searched for evidence that he was a combat sambo world champion, but I couldn't find any. The article claims he was the 2012 world champion, but I found nothing to show he even competed at the FIAS 2012 world championships in Minsk.[18] He's not listed among the medal winners and my search of the draw sheets didn't turn up his name either. Papaursa (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boden, Florida

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

Doesn't appear to have ever been an actual community. GNIS reference is bare, and a Newspapers.com search, a Google Books search, and a cursory Google search reveal nothing relevant either. Historic aerials only go back to 1952, and in that aerial there appears to be nothing there, though there's a slim chance it existed before hand. Pokemonprime (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Pokemonprime (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Pokemonprime (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Pokemonprime (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lol what's up with the unsourced "private property" comment? Doesn't give any confidence it's an actual community, much less a notable one. Reywas92^Talk 02:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of a community, fails GNG and GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 03:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked at this one earlier and found nothing indicating what this even was - GNIS comes from a county highway map, and sourcing brings up nothing I could determine was referring to this place. Topos only go back to the 1960s, but show no indication of there being any sort of human inhabitation there. Hog Farm _Talk 03:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a community, per the points outlined above. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 23:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Savings.com

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

Promotional article. No evidence of notability under WP:CORP, and WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH - sources presented in article are passing mentions of the domain name, lightly-churned press releases in dubious sources about acquisitions of the domain name, and one article actually about savings.com as a product. David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming this is about a company/organization, then the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. 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⁺⁺ 17:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like standard variety promotional page for a business that's not there yet (WP:TOOSOON). Few mentions in niche marketing/business as usual reports, and little else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeFrugal.com

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

Fails ORGCRITE, SIRS, and CORPDEPTH. Lacking sources with independent and significant coverage. Also see, ADMASQ. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom. Previous AfD in 2012 resulted in delete. According to the nom of that AfD this page was speedily deleted, recreated, and was still SPAM. It failed "...wp:corp or any other WP:N you want to use."

Two and one half years later, this page was re-created in July 2014 [19]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with nom; there's only the one short article in the Globe that gives any coverage at all to the subject, and that's just a pop culture piece because this outfit's CEO popped off as a publicity stunt. Ravenswing 18:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Canard (aeronautics)#Computer control. ✗plicit 02:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocanard

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

This is not an encyclopedic topic, being a neologistic nickname used by some in the aviation trade publications, and more broadly by amateur fan-people. It's not subject that should be covered separately, but probably only warrants one paragraph, if that, in another article such as Fighter aircraft. BilCat (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article clearly fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as it is just a dictionary definition and only for a colloquial fan nickname, too, not any sort of official term. Could merit a one-line mention in another article, but not an encyclopedic topic. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just updated the article with more information showing that the Eurocanards have a common design origin in the 1970s-1980s.Real Live Plutarch (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Neologism and not a comprehensive term, but can incorporate any useful material in canard (aeronautics) article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canard (aeronautics)#Computer control. The term "euro canard" or "euro-canard" is used often enough to deserve mention, as it now (with cites) is in the destination I propose. But it's just a buzzword to describe a local design trend and does not merit its own article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Steelpillow. - ZLEA _T\^C 04:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Stevenson

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

Has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years! No indication of notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a British researcher, who was either a linguist or an anthropologist, named Roland C. Stevenson. He "was trained both in linguistics and social anthropology , having studied in the University of London at King's College , the School of..." according to a Google books snippet. There are a lot of Google books sources for Roland C. Stevenson. For this one, the Chilean Roland without the "C", I found and added a couple of namecheck sources, but there is not really much out there. --- Possibly ☎ 09:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short documentary on him on Youtube, which shows him painting mostly naked women on horses. That's the only 'in-depth' source I saw. --- Possibly ☎ 09:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Having seen the Portuguese language article, it seems the subject may be notable. I'm not proficient enough in that language, however, to make a translation and add the sources there are. --Kuatrero (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found more sources and expanded the article after using Google's translation button. The subject received numerous awards and is well known for his archaeological work as well as his artwork. There is clear evidence of notability. Sources can be found by searching just his first and last name. Passes WP:BIO and meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While I am wary of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, I am not seeing any in-depth source about his life or contributions. The best source here as far as I can tell is some announcement from a non-notable gallery that exhibited his works. Do correct me if I missed some betters source. Other than that we have a totally unreferenced list of awards that don't appear to be significant (at least, as judged by the fact none have an article on English or Portuguese wikis). The only reason I am not voting delete but weak delete is due to systemic bias - maybe he got some coverage in non-digitized Chilean sources? But that's just speculation (per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That there might be offline sources is not sufficient reason to keep, and nothing in the article as it is establishes notability. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough citations to show notability. Peter303x (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] "నంది అవార్డు విజేతల పరంపర (1964–2008)" [A series of Nandi Award Winners (1964–2008)] (PDF). Information & Public Relations of Andhra Pradesh. Retrieved 21 August 2020.(in Telugu)

[2] Gopalrao, Griddaluru (1 December 1967). "అభిప్రాయం: పూల రంగడు" [Opinion: Poola Rangadu] (PDF). Zamin Ryot (in Telugu). p. 9.

[1]

[2]